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.     

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.     

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.     

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。     

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.     

被害人权利保护与恢复性司法

以恢复性司法为制度进路,追求刑事被害人权利保护这一事关实质正义实现的法治目标。对犯罪人的制裁更多地涉及法律的一般性与普遍性,因此偏重于追求形式正义;对被害人权利的弥补、修复、保护更多地涉及生活中实际、具体的事件之合理性与被害人个别处遇,因此偏重于追求实质正义。在传统刑事司法制度中,被害人的权利长期遭受不应有的忽视,而在欧美获得蓬勃发展的恢复性司法制度则针对不同案件、不同犯罪人和被害人开展了形式多样的恢复性司法计划,为我国惩治犯罪人、保护被害人与实现个案中的实质正义提供了良好的理论资源与制度进路。     

New wine and old wineskins: Four challenges of restorative justice

Conclusion Dissatisfaction with the current paradigm of criminal justice is leading to new programs with different visions. Some, such as restitution, can be incorporated into existing structures. Others, such as victim-offender reconciliation, point to a possible new approach to criminal justice—restorative justice. In some ways, restorative justice is simply a new application of an ancient vision. It is new wine from old vines. But those of us who celebrate the harvest are advised to remember the parable of new wine and old wineskins. Before we begin to pour—before we insert restorative features into familiar responses to crime—we would do well to reflect on what the consequences may be.This article has considered four likely consequences: the challenge to abolish criminal law, the challenge to rank multiple goals, the challenge to determine harm rationally, and the challenge to structure community-government cooperation. Although each challenge is significant, I have argued that all can be effectively addressed. Indeed, they must be if criminal justice is to become—using Justice John Kelly's image—a means of healing the wounds of crime.B.A., Wheaton College 1971; J.D., DePaul University 1975; LL.M., Georgetown University 1993. I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Karen Strong, David Carlson, Thomas Crawford, and Dr. Daniel Dreisbach.     

American social work, corrections and restorative justice: an appraisal

Social work played an active role in American corrections until the 1980s when the ethic of rehabilitation began to give way to a more conservative doctrine of retribution. Changes in the field of social work, characterized by preference of social workers to work only with certain populations, contributed to social work's diminishment in corrections. Although efforts at rehabilitation continue in corrections, the concept of restorative justice that emphasizes assisting victims, communities, and offenders in dealing with the consequences of crime is gaining acceptance in the field of corrections in the United States and in other countries. This study explored social work's presence in corrections, the decline of that presence, and how the concept of restorative justice can invigorate social work within the field of corrections. Several examples of social work's contemporary efforts to use the concept of restorative justice in the United Kingdom are presented.