The dawning of a new era in social reaction to crime: promise, potential and limitations of restorative justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite dramatic social changes and unprecedented technological innovations penal philosophy has undergone little change. Retribution continues to be the key principle in sentencing and judges continue their hopeless struggle to make the punishment fit the crime. It is truly baffling that the CJS has remained archaic in its philosophy, its outlook and its tools and has remained insulated from whatever changes and advances that had taken place in modern society? For as yet unexplained reasons the system has resisted every attempt to modernize and change? This is probably why it is that despite the manifest advantages and benefits of R.J. over a punitive, retributive system, whose sole aim is to inflict pain and suffering on the wrong-doer, there is still reluctance to do away with the ideas of expiation and penitence in favor of reconciliation and compensation. The strong support for victims of crime, coupled with the undeniable fact that victims are the main losers in a punitive system of justice, have not yet succeeded in convincing politicians, lawmakers or the general public of the need to replace the medieval practice of punishment by a more constructive, more peaceful and less harmful means of dealing with crime and conflict. And yet, the destructive and detrimental effects of punishment are too evident to ignore. All this suggests that the time is right for a paradigm shift in society’s response to crime. There is a desperate need to move from philosophical abstraction to restorative action, from senseless retribution to meaningful restitution, from just deserts to restorative justice. But there is also a need for realism. R.J. is not a pana-cea. Although superior in every respect to retribution R.J. does have certain limitations and there are certain dangers to be avoided when moving towards the full implementation of a restorative justice system.
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 | 0.022 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.079 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".