Rethinking the Criminalization of Sexual Violence: The Limits of the Criminal Justice Paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The domination of the criminal justice paradigm suggests that criminalization is the best paradigm to address violence and to provide public safety. Despite decades of criminal justice reforms, the stable rates of sexual crimes call for a discourse analysis on societal understanding of justice. This thesis is an analysis of the efficiency of the criminal justice paradigm’s operationalization to address sexual violence in the Canadian context. The analysis conducted centered on the four sentencing principles of the criminal justice paradigm: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation and demonstrated the inability of the Canadian criminal justice system to convict individuals who commit sexual harm. Furthermore, the power of the criminal justice system to institutionalize the social categorization of individuals within a binary, as victims and as offenders, further entrenches cycles of harm. The victim/offender binary erases the complexities and nuances of sexual harm limiting healing and transformation for both individuals involved in the harmful interaction. Thus, it is argued that the criminal justice system has failed to prevent and address sexual violence and to create more harm by creating disposable identities in with the victim/offender binary. A shift in justice paradigm towards transformative justice and carceral abolition is proposed here as a hopeful avenue to better address sexual violence in Canadian society. Abolition praxis encourages the experimenting of community-based transformative justice practices to both prevent and address sexual violence without the intervention of police and prisons.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.111 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".