论恢复性司法与和谐社会的构建

恢复性司法作为一种全新的刑事司法模式,以被害人权益为导向,通过搭建被害人、犯罪人与社区间的对话平台,促进社会关系的修复,并取得良好的司法效果。鉴于此,和谐社会的构建以及刑事司法制度的完善,有必要吸收恢复性司法的理念,结合我国刑事司法的本土资源,建立恢复性司法制度。     

熟人社会:恢复性司法的本土资源

恢复性司法是一种新型的刑事司法模式,在现今的刑事司法领域中,其正日益发展成为一种世界性的运动,要引进这一在国外经过实践检验证明是好的法律制度,自然要经过一个本土化的过程。熟人社会在某种意义上是我国最大的实际,因此,有必要就熟人社会传统对于我国移植恢复性司法制度的作用进行思考和研究。     

浅论恢复性司法及其本土化构建

作为一项刑事司法革新运动,恢复性司法以其全新的理念和良好的实践效果而越来越受到各国刑事司法理论界和实务界的重视。但是恢复性司法在我国目前还面临着自身定位、理念以及制度设计上的种种缺陷,这已成为阻碍其在我国进一步发展的瓶颈。本文试从探讨恢复性司法制度相关利弊的基础上来对其在我国如何更好地发展做一论述。     

建立少年恢复性司法模式刍议

恢复性司法是一种全新的刑事法治模式,本文试从恢复性司法的内容、特征与价值功能等方面进行考察,并对其理论内核进行评析。在目前恢复性司法在我国的理论研究与实践现状的基础上,提出在少年司法制度中首先探索建立恢复性司法模式。     

恢复性司法制度刍议

恢复性司法是人们对社会秩序的重新弥合,恢复被破坏的社会平衡的一种良好的追求。在我国研究恢复性司法,无疑是在探讨犯罪处理方式中另辟蹊径。本文试通过分析恢复性司法制度,并结合我国的刑事司法制度的有关规定,提出恢复性司法制度引进我国亟待解决的问题。     

走出认识误区,引进恢复性司法程序

恢复性司法作为目前的热门话题,就其价值取向、利弊分析、我国的引入问题尚存有各种不同观点;我国学者目前对该项制度的理解本身存在着一定误区;出于对刑事被害人利益保护的要求,在当前提倡以人为本、构建和谐社会和实施宽严相济刑事政策的大环境下,我国迫切需要引入恢复性司法制度,以解决传统刑事司法的弊端与无奈。     

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。     

恢复性司法对我国刑事诉讼制度的影响

恢复性司法是一种不同于传统司法模式的新型司法模式,它寻求尽可能利用罪犯、受害者和社区的积极和自愿参与的方式,恢复受犯罪影响的所有当事方的一切权益。我国引入恢复性司法既具有刑事司法实践、刑事观念、刑事制度和社会发展的基础,也与我国当前的刑事诉讼制度存在一定冲突。恢复性司法实践与理念对我国刑事诉讼可能产生的影响,突出表现在刑事观念、诉讼制度和检察机关法律监督方式等诸多方面。     

浅谈恢复性司法对完善我国刑事司法制度的借鉴作用

恢复性司法是西方国家在刑事司法领域推行的一项新制度,由于其坚持"修复社会关系、保障被害人合法权益",弥补了以国家追诉主义为中心的刑事司法制度的缺陷,被越来越多的国家所接受,借鉴其先进理念,对完善我国刑事司法制度具有较大意义。     

恢复性司法及其借鉴意义

恢复性司法与传统刑事司法模式存在着许多区别,其最主要特征在于恢复性,是一种通过恢复性程序实现恢复性后果的非正式犯罪处理方法,这种处理方法提供了一条以和平的方式、在当事人充分参与的基础上解决刑事冲突的新途径。恢复性司法已在西方诸多国家得到充分的发展,对我国的刑事司法实践同样也有着重要的借鉴意义。     

论修复性司法

与传统刑事司法相比,修复性司法在满足各方当事人需要、吸引社会公众参与、预防和减少犯罪、降低成本、提高成效等方面具有优势,但也有过度依赖当事人、适合处理的案件有限、社会控制的不当扩大和对弱势群体及当事人权利保护不力等局限。修复性司法在国家在刑事司法中的地位、刑事司法的功能、对正义的理解和犯罪解决机制多元化等方面对我们有重要启示。改革我国刑事司法,应跨越单纯改革刑事诉讼程序的狭隘思路,对刑事司法机制进行重塑,逐步建立统一协调、良性互动、功能互补、程序衔接、彼此支持的双轨制,以更好地解决犯罪问题。     

恢复性司法应当缓行

恢复性司法是当前时代的一个热门话题,它以其全新的司法理念引起人们的广泛关注.但是应当看到恢复性司法本身有其固有的理论缺陷:它虽名为司法,实为非司法;它不能真正实现正义;它不仅颠覆了传统的犯罪本质观,而且违反了刑法的罪刑法定原则、罪责刑相适应原则、刑法面前人人平等原则和刑事诉讼法的无罪推定原则.如果把其引入我国,它会遇到法律文化、国家本位价值观、不能有效预防犯罪以及不利于消除司法腐败等本土性障碍,所以,恢复性司法目前在我国不具有适用的土壤,应当缓行.     

An outcome evaluation of a restorative justice alternative to incarceration

Restorative justice has become an increasingly popular alternative to traditional applications of criminal justice. The emphasis on victim needs and the personalizing of conflict resolution offers an attractive choice for those dissatisfied with the adversarial, impersonal, and retributive focus of the present criminal justice system. Many evaluations of restorative justice programs, especially those with a diversion goal, have rarely controlled for the possibility of net widening and the influence of offender risk on recidivism. This evaluation examined a prison diversion program that followed restorative justice principles. Using a matched comparison group and controlling for offender risk, the program demonstrated a diversion effect and a significant reduction in offender recidivism. The results are encouraging for jurisdictions experimenting with this new approach to justice and seeking a more integrated role for victims in criminal justice processing.     

Making space for restorative justice in criminal justice and criminology curricula and courses

Restorative justice, rooted in the practices of indigenous people across the globe, has grown exponentially in both theory and practice since its beginnings in Canada in the 1970s. Restorative justice has influenced the interactions between offenders and victims, helped community members address crime and develop self-efficacy, and changed the way some countries rebuild after a history of oppression. Despite these restorative justice influenced changes, many criminology and criminal justice programs pay scant attention to restorative justice in curricula. This paper will examine ways to include restorative justice in criminal justice and criminology curriculum and the challenges involved in the process. The paper will then examine how the Law and Justice Department at Central Washington University has incrementally added restorative justice components to its curriculum, culminating most recently with the addition of a Community and Social Justice course. The paper will conclude with several examples of classroom activities and assignments that have helped connect students with the theory and practice of restorative justice.     

Youth Crime: Whose Responsibility?

Responsibility is an increasingly important concept within both political and academic debates about youth justice. As an alternative approach to youth crime, restorative justice ideology has contributed to this debate. Restorative justice emphasizes the importance of repairing harm by encouraging offenders to address past behaviour and to become responsible for future actions. This article reflects on empirical findings from the author's research with 41 young offenders who were the subjects of Referral Orders, a purportedly restorative disposal. It considers how successfully the English youth justice system has adopted this approach, arguing that there is a significant difference between the theory of restorative justice and its use in practice. To some extent, New Labour's emphasis on the criminal justice system has missed the point behind the ideology of restorative justice and the wider opportunities it offers for a proactively restorative society.     

恢复性司法与我国和谐社会建设

恢复性司法是指由受害人、违法者及其他可能受犯罪行为影响的个人或者社区成员积极参与刑事事务的解决的任何程序.恢复性司法理念有利于我们的和谐社会建设,在我国适用恢复性司法存在着有利的群众基础、政策支持、组织保证和实践经验.     

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.     

论未成年人恢复性司法的合理性与局限性

恢复性司法是一种通过恢复性程序实现恢复性后果的非正式犯罪处理方法。为考察司法人员与公众对待确定未成年人恢复性司法制度态度,对法官、公众等不同群体作问卷调查,结果表明,法官和公众对未成年人司法制度的诸项改革基本认可。该制度的合理性表现在可减少刑事污点对未成年人的消极影响,有利于恢复受损的社会关系,对违法犯罪的未成年人有积极的矫正作用;其局限性体现在难以满足同罪同罚的刑法原则,难以避免替代性的承担责任的现象等。避免局限性的关键在于要解决恢复性司法与正式司法程序的关系问题。