Historical Context and Evolution of Juvenile Justice System with Reference to Restorative Justice Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of the juvenile justice framework in India has been linked to the shift of the colonial punitive models to the rehabilitative model of justice, as enshrined in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Despite this change, there is still controversy on the balance between the deterrence and the reintegration especially after the rather controversial measure of allowing the juveniles aged 16-18 to be subjected to legal proceedings as adult in the offense which is heinous. This paper gives a critical analysis of restorative justice practices in a comparative context to determine their practicability in the juvenile justice framework of India. The research relies upon a qualitative, interpretivist approach and a comparative study design to assess statutory and judicial rulings and academic literature in India, as well as the restorative frameworks in New Zealand, Canada, and the United States. They include these jurisdictions that shed light on family group conferencing, diversionary practices, community-based interventions, and victim-offender mediation. Results note that restorative justice can lead to greater accountability, decreased recidivism, increased victim satisfaction, and can also address systemic inequalities such as disproportionate minority contact. In the case of India, the adoption depends on structural barriers such as resource scarcity, organizational capacity and the social attitudes towards juvenile offenders, and these issues are problematic to the implementation on large-scale basis. However, the incorporation of restorative processes may positively reinforce the reintegration of communities, lessen institutionalisation, and make the system consistent with the international child-rights principles. The paper recommends policy proposals of a culturally-oriented restorative measures that are balanced between accountability, rehabilitation and reintegration of the juvenile justice system in India.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".