Restorative justice and sexual assault in Nova Scotia: Why is the door ajar?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Restorative justice has gained wide appeal as an alternative form of justice that offers youth the opportunity to take responsibility for wrongdoing and make amends to victims. As the popularity of this approach increases, new and controversial applications have spawned a significant body of literature. Among the contested applications is the use of restorative justice for sexual assault and partner violence. Sexual violence against women is of particular concern as the conventional criminal justice system may be viewed as a patriarchal institution that only perpetuates the myths and stereotypes surrounding these crimes. Published literature on the use of restorative justice for sexual offences/partner violence is mostly theoretical and refrains from drawing any firm conclusions; however, the door is consistently left ajar for further discussion and research. In Nova Scotia, as in many other jurisdictions worldwide, a moratorium prevents the Nova Scotia Restorative Justice program from handling such cases. This thesis examines the potential harms and benefits of extending restorative justice to sexual assault/partner violence. Open-ended interviews were conducted with eight respondents, three from positions within the Nova Scotia Restorative Justice program, three from the criminal justice system, and two respondents who were women‟s or victim‟s advocates. This thesis comes to the conclusion that the door must remain open for further discussion about the role of restorative justice in cases of sexual assault and the generation of research must proceed, albeit with caution and input from feminist organizations and women‟s advocates.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".