Hate groups and hate crime

This paper is the first to investigate the relationship between hate groups and hate crime empirically. We do so using panel data for the U.S. states between 2002 and 2008. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we find little evidence that hate groups are associated with hate crime in the United States. We find somewhat stronger evidence that economic hardship may be related to hate crime. However, evidence for the potential importance of economic factors remains weak. Further, we find that demographic variables are not significantly related to hate crime in the United States. Our results leave the question of what factors may drive hate crime in America unresolved. But they cast doubt on the popular perception that hate groups are among them.     

Frenemies: restorative justice and customary mechanisms of justice

More often than not, restorative justice is said to take roots in Indigenous practices. In fact, Indigenous and other traditional mechanisms of justice are often described as examples of restorative justice practices. In New Zealand, the government equates the Mãori approach to doing justice with family group conferences (FGC); a restorative justice mechanism which it claims embodies Mãori values and preferences. This article contends, however, that the type of ‘justice’ embodied in customary mechanisms, has often been taken out of context, and rendered universal and ahistorical through its representation as restorative justice mechanisms. Using fieldwork evidence, an analytical comparison between principles of restorative practices, New Zealand’s FGCs and the Mãori approach to justice was conducted. It concludes that this tendency to equate restorative justice with Indigenous approaches to law and justice is harmful and dangerous for it risks rendering the scholarship homogenizing and universalizing restorative justice, to the detriment of local preferences and practices.     

Toward a restorative justice pedagogy: reflections on teaching restorative justice in correctional facilities

Restorative justice is currently practiced in a variety of ways inside correctional facilities. One such way is the facilitation of restorative justice education. If grounded in restorative values, such education can contribute to outcomes similar to other restorative practices, such as victim offender dialogue. These outcomes include opportunities to speak to personal experiences, personal change, and growth, and a desire to engage in positive relationships and give back to the community. This paper draws on the teaching and facilitation experiences of the author and incarcerated peer facilitators to develop a restorative justice pedagogy. This pedagogy, based on restorative values, aims to inspire individual and social transformation; build community among participants; give voice to the unique experiences of participants; offer opportunities for real-life problem solving; provide a creative learning environment that is co-created by students and facilitators; view students as practitioners, theorists, and educators; and invite instructors to view themselves as students and share in the learning process. Implications of the restorative justice pedagogy for teaching outside the prison context and with course material other than restorative justice conclude the article.     

Effects of face-to-face restorative justice on victims of crime in four randomized,controlled trials

The growing use of restorative justice provides a major opportunity for experimental criminology and evidence-based policy. Face-to-face meetings led by police officers between crime victims and their offenders are predicted to reduce the harm to victims caused by the crime. This prediction is derived not only from the social movement for restorative justice, but also from the microsociology of interaction rituals (Collins, 2004). Four randomized, controlled trials of this hypothesis in London and Canberra, with point estimates disaggregated by gender, tested the prediction with measures of both successful interaction ritual (apologies received and their perceived sincerity) and the hypothesized benefits of the ritual (on forgiveness of, and reduced desire for violent revenge against, offenders, and victim self-blame for the crime). The meta-analyses of the eight point estimates suggest success (as victims define it) of restorative justice as an interaction ritual, and as a policy for reducing harm to victims.     

Teaching restorative justice to education and criminal justice majors

In academia, departments in Education and Sociology/Criminal Justice are in different colleges, but professionals in these fields frequently interact, such as probation officers working in schools and teachers working in prisons. This paper describes a course that addressed a commonality of the two by focusing on Restorative Justice. The content of the course was multi-disciplinary and co-taught by two professors from these different disciplines, and students were from a wide range of majors. Not only did the course content focus on Restorative Justice, this perspective guided how the course was taught. All classes were conducted within a Circle, students participated in the creation of the syllabus, students contracted for grades, and students organized many of the discussions. Emphasis was on critical analysis of Restorative Justice practices and theories. Quantitative and qualitative evaluations were provided as well as reflections by the teachers.     

恢复性司法的价值与理念——报应性司法和恢复性司法比较研究

犯罪包含着犯罪人与受害方，犯罪人与社会及其国家之间的衔突。报应性司法采用形而上的哲学方法分析犯罪原因，认为犯罪是犯罪人自由选择的结果，犯罪所侵害的主要是国家的统治秩序，因此，在“以怨报怨”观念支配下，主张犯罪人承担刑罚这样的抽象责任。恢复性司法以实证的方法研究犯罪，认为犯罪是社区关系失调的产物，犯罪侵害的不仅是国家利益，还包括被害人利益和社区利益，因此，在“以直报怨”观念支配下，主张犯罪人要面对受害方承担道歉、赔偿等具体责任。     

Harm and Repair: Observing restorative justice in Vermont

This paper analyzes the decision-making process for negotiating reparative contracts with offenders in a restorative justice model. Based on a content analysis of videotaped Community Reparative Board meetings with probationers in Vermont, this paper defines restoration as a core concept in restorative justice; examines how boards identify harm to victims and community; discusses how boards identify strategies to repair identified harm; addresses how repair often becomes a line item in reparative contracts; and offers interpretation for situations in which harm is not identified and/or not repaired.     

Unfinished business: Aboriginal reconciliation and restorative justice in Australia

In this paper we report on general findings and observations in Australia and from two days of the Deliberative Poll on Reconciliation in Canberra. With hundreds of representative Australians participating, and plenary sessions broadcast nationally, it appeared that Australia was progressing on its long journey toward aboriginal reconciliation. In this paper, we apply a theoretical analysis from criminology--restorative justice--to examine the means by and the extent to which the national community conference was a restorative event. Of particular interest to this analysis are the unintended restorative outcomes, the voices heard, the dialogues on apologies, regrets and the past, future possibilities, and responsibility. Some preliminary thoughts on the future of reconciliation will be offered and a few skeptical comments made.     

Seeing things differently: restorative justice and school discipline1

… helping to incorporate the principles of human rights, democracy, tolerance and mutual respect, the rule of law and peaceful resolution of conflicts into the daily practice of teaching and learning …2 2. Council of Europe (2004) Education for Europe, retrieved from http://www.coe.int/T/E/Cultural_Co-operation/education View all notes     

Why rural crime and justice really matter

While it is true that in general urban crime is roughly three times higher than rural crime, over the last decades rural crime has increased at the same rate as crime in big cities. Whereas violent crime in large cities rose from 1966 through 1991 and then declined, rural rates drifted upward for the entire period. Moreover, some crimes are more prevalent in rural settings than in cities, while some others by definition cannot even be committed in cities at all (“rural-specific offenses”). Meanwhile, researchers have paid little attention to rural crime and justice. This is highly regrettable given that studying rural crime and justice can potentially contribute in very important ways both to criminological theory and to crime policy. This article deals with why it is important for researchers, the justice system, and society in general to pay greater attention to issues of rural crime and rural justice. Among the reasons discussed are statistical arguments defying popular misconceptions, arguments in the field of criminological theory, counterintuitive trends in rural crime, various disadvantages which rural areas suffer compared with urban ones, strategies for dealing with crime which must be adapted to the rural environment, and some others. Finally, both theory and policy implications are discussed, demonstrating that rural crime cannot be understood or controlled in the same ways as urban crime is. Author Note: Dr. Wojciech Cebulak recived his Master's in Law from Copernicus University in Torun, Poland, and his Ph.D. in Criminal Justice from Rutgers University. He has taught at Salem State College, Oklahoma State University, Kent State University, and is currently an Associate Professor at the Department of Criminal Justice, Minot State University, 500 University Avenue West, Minot, ND 58707. He has also been Project Director of the Research Partner/Crime Analyst Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) initiative for the District of North Dakota.