Restorative Justice, Shame and Forgiveness

Restorative conferencing is a new style of criminal justice intervention which is being increasingly used in Britain, especially as a method of delivering police cautions to youth offenders.Is is currently the subject of a lively debate, focusing on its effectiveness as a method of crime reduction, its benefits tovictims, its feasibility in modern society, its effect upon procedural rights of arrestees, and the danger of it becoming a degradation ceremony. This paper seeks to extend the debate to include less obvious, but equally important, issues. The paper focuses on the processes of reintegrative shaming which, inspired by the work of John Braithwaite, are at the core of restorative conferencing. It places these processes in broader historical and cultural contexts, such as the re-emergence ofshame sanctions in the USA, the attack on the notion ofshame launched by cultural radicals, and the changes which have occurred historically in our emotional response to offenders.Three sets of questions emerge: What is the political –as distinct from penal – meaning of the practice of shaming offenders? How does the practice affect the progressive cultural aim of fuller realization of the individual? At what point doesforgiveness become less of a virtue, more of a vice?     

恢复性司法程序之思考

本文对恢复性司法程序的内容、制度基础以及历史渊源进行考察,并对恢复性司法程序的利弊加以分析,最后论述在我国构建恢复性司法程序的障碍及有利因素的基础上,提出了构建该程序的初步设想。     

Restorative Justice in India

‘Restorative Justice’ reflects a crimino-victim balanced justice system where equal justice to offenders and victims is ensured. There are four potent features of Restorative Justice: repair, restore, reconcile, and reintegrate the offenders and victims to each other and to their shared environments and communities. There are many examples within Indian criminological literature that thoroughly explain the practice of restorative justice in India. The kings who ruled in various parts of the country had practiced restorative justice in a well thought out and traditional manner. Much of Gandhian philosophy and practice is based on restorative justice principles including the participatory practices of fairness and equality. Though there is a limited amount of literature on the present restorative justice practices available in India, this paper attempts to explain restorative justice practices across the continent from the view point of society and legal provision.     

论恢复性司法

恢复性司法是古代司法模式的更高层次的回归,目前在数十个国家都有立法或实践,并巳受到国际社会关注.恢复性司法蕴含着被害人、被告人、社区利益平衡理念与恢复关系的司法理念.并且创生了一种新的利益争端解决方式,形成对传统司法之有益补充.由于其有利于完善我国刑事司法体系,解决实际问题,因而有引进的必要.并且我国也具备借鉴恢复性司法之观念和相关制度基础,因而有引进的可行性.     

An Expansive,Transformative View of Restorative Justice

This article addresses two distinct but related concerns. The first section argues for adoption of a wide‐ranging conceptualization of restorative justice, one that encompasses concern for community, structural, economic and social levels of attention, as well as personal and direct consideration for parties to crimes and conflicts. It is a view of restorative justice, like that espoused by Sullivan and Tifft, that is transformative in conception, ambition, and operation. It is based on awareness that making distinctions between restorative and community justice may be useful for some purposes but expresses a preference for thinking of these two perspectives as part of a larger whole. The second part of the article highlights 10 values or principles that may help guide the development and implementation of an expansive view of restorative justice. It suggests that a person who wishes to pursue a more peaceful and just world should be ethically engaged, behave in an exemplary fashion, beware of and avoid exploitation, fully embrace equality, be empathic, act so as to empower oneself and others, recognize the entwinement of all people and the earth, select interventions that are effectual while being error‐aware, appreciate that ends and means are enmeshed, and act with earnest enthusiasm.     

恢复性司法的实证研究

恢复性司法的各方面优势需要通过广泛的实证研究来真实展现,而各种恢复性司法的具体模式的优缺点也将在实证研究中表露无遗.维拉司法研究所基于其长期从事司法制度改革实证研究的经验,针对通过实证研究所展现出来的各种恢复性司法模式的优缺点创造了一种混合的恢复性司法模式并将之运用到恢复性司法示范项目中,对大量真实案件适用这一混合模式,并运用追踪、信息的评估等实证研究的方法检验这一混合模式的成败.     

论修复性司法模式

与重惩罚的传统刑事司法模式不同,修复性司法模式,强调的是如何对犯罪造成的损害进行修复,而非单纯惩罚犯罪人。修复性司法作为一种刑事司法改革运动与一种刑事司法理念,还不是一个完全成熟的理论。因此,其内涵关系真实性是否存在还需要进一步检验,同样,修复性司法在我国能否进入实务过程似乎还有一段困难的路要走,仍有待加强实证研究。     

司法的恢复性与社会的和谐化——恢复性司法理论国际研讨会综述

在我国建设和谐社会的宏大工程中,刑事司法是极其重要的一环,因而对发端于西方且正试行于我国实践中的恢复性司法模式展开研究,具有重要的理论价值和现实意义.会议围绕恢复性司法的理论基础、价值取向、实践模式、具体运作及其引入中国的可行性等五个主题,进行了广泛而深入的研讨,取得了丰硕的成果.     

Revisiting Informal Justice: Restorative Justice and Democratic Professionalism

Restorative justice is a form of informal justice growing rapidly among criminal justice practitioners. It decenters the focus of criminal justice from the offender breaking a law of the state to the harm caused the victim and community. Resolution is said to come from offenders taking responsibility and making amends for the harm done and from communities supporting the victim and providing offenders with opportunities and skills to reintegrate as contributing members.
Restorative justice theory largely ignores the role of professionals in the criminal justice process, and yet professionals have played a dominant part in initiating many restorative justice programs. Several theoretical traditions recognize professionals as being important intermediaries between citizens and the state. The theory of democratic professionalism argues that professionals can play crucial roles in increasing and improving democratic participation in public affairs. This article examines two functioning restorative justice programs to flesh out what democratic professionalism might look like in operation—what tasks professionals perform and what citizen involvement means to the professionals. We argue that restorative justice cannot get along without professionals and that democratic professionalism may help restorative justice to avoid some of the problems associated with other approaches to informal justice by increasing true community participation but balancing it with concern for individuals' rights.     

Researching Restorative Justice: Politics,Policy and Process

The purpose of this paper is to explore some questions around the process of engaging in research in restorative justice in the contemporary political and economic climate of the UK. Its key concern is to endeavour to create a framework in which it is possible to develop an understanding of the process whereby restorative justice was transformed from the ‘dead duck’ of the late 1980s to its current popularity. It takes as its example for understanding this transformation the problems and possibilities of engaging in research in restorative justice and how such research needs to be contextualised within a wider understanding of the policy and political process. This paper does not set out to offer any answers to the questions it raises, but is primarily concerned to bring to the fore some of the absences that can be detected within the contemporary embrace of restorative justice in the UK.     

Evaluating Restorative Justice Programs in Taiwan

This paper aims to evaluate four restorative justice programs in Taiwan: (1) a mediation system; (2) deferred prosecution and conditional suspended sentence; (3) a youth justice system; and (4) the Taiwan Restorative Justice Initiative. In this paper, models proposed in Marshall (Restorative justice: An overview. London: Home Office, 1999) and Braithwaite (British Journal of Criminology 42:563–577, 2002b) are used as criteria to evaluate the four programs. Based on governmental documents, official statistics, and the findings of previous empirical studies, this paper will examine whose needs and power is focused and what types of value are highlighted in those four programs. This paper finds that current restorative justice programs in Taiwan place greater emphasis on offenders than on other parties such as victims and communities. In addition, maximizing and emergent standards that Braithwaite identifies are implemented more in Taiwan’s restorative justice programs than constraining standards. This paper suggests that restorative justice practices in Taiwan need to be more concerned with victims’ needs and interests, and to strengthen constraining types of restorative justice values.     

Mediation and Restorative Justice in Belgium

In this article we present, discuss and try to evaluate initiatives which were recently introduced into the Belgian criminal justice system, aimed at the development of creative answers to crime that avoid the use of traditional prison sentences. We decided to focus this analysis on the practice of mediation as it is actually considered the most innovative approach to the crime problem. Mediation as a problem-solving intervention has to be considered in direct relation to the discussion of the purpose of the criminal justice system. By putting the emphasis on the dialogue between the victim and the offender, a common solution is worked out with the help of a mediator. In this way reparation, redress and sometimes even reconciliation become core values of the penal action.     

恢复性司法的发展、挑战与选择

传统的刑事司法制度在预防与控制犯罪中遇到了难以克服的困境,在此背景下产生了恢复性司法运动。恢复性司法运动在保护被害人权利,弥补受损社会关系、帮助被告人重返社会等方面取得了巨大的成就。然而,由于传统恢复性司法在制度设计、程序规范、实施时间等方面存在诸多缺陷,因此,对其目的、效果的质疑也与日俱增。而从制度上对恢复性司法进行完善,特别是加强审前程序的司法监督和完备审理后制度设计,是恢复性司法面对挑战的新选择。     

恢复性司法及其本土制度化危机

凭借伦理和宗教规范作为肯统刑事解纷方式的恢复性司法属于非国家正式刑事司法机制。从类型学上分析，可以把恢复性司法划分为不同的模式和类型。概括地看，恢复性司法存在于当代社会的法理基础是政治多元合法化和刑事司法制度民主化。从传统文化和现实的国家权力与公民权利的关系看，我们缺乏借鉴和实施恢复性司法本土制度化的资源。