Correcting Community Service: From Work Crews to Community Work in a Juvenile Court

In 2001, the Clark County Juvenile Court in Washington State implemented the use of “restorative community service” (RCS) as part of its larger adoption of a restorative justice framework. This paper explores the court’s implementation and use of RCS, including: (1) the types of institutional changes made by the court in its development of RCS, (2) the types and qualities of social interactions observed by the researcher through participant observation at several RCS sites, (3) the practical implications of these findings for proponents of restorative justice in the use of community service in youth settings, and (4) the theoretical implications of these findings for sociological and criminological research on community service.     

Community‐based restorative transitional justice in Sierra Leone

Community‐based restorative transitional justice is an important feature of peace consolidation, maximizing access to justice and facilitating reconciliation. Examining post‐conflict Sierra Leone as a case study, the author draws on existing justice practices in Sierra Leone as examples of restorative responses to war criminality. Specifically, the traditional reintegration of former male and female combatants and the emergence of a new project, ‘Fambul Tok’ are detailed. The author discusses and compares the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to point to gaps in transitional justice that call for community‐based restorative strategies.     

纠纷解决观在刑事司法中的引入

解决纠纷是司法制度的原初和首要功能。纠纷解决观是一种以承认纠纷的客观存在和不可回避为前提,将解决纠纷视为重要任务以防范纠纷可能带来的各种负面影响的观念。纠纷解决观尚未在我国刑事司法制度中确立,其在刑事司法中的引入具有多方面的必要性和可能性。纠纷解决观的引入与刑事诉讼控制犯罪与保障人权相统一的目的并不矛盾。我国刑事司法制度应在纠纷解决观的指导下进行相应的完善。     

社区调解中的合作主义——基于西南某市调研的分析

转型期的社区纠纷以内生型纠纷为主,外生型纠纷则与经济发达程度、城市化程度呈正比,二者均属于可控型纠纷。作为内生型纠纷解决机制,社区调解体现出了纠纷解决合作主义,涉及政府/社区与调解者/当事人两个维度。在未来相当长的时期内,社区调解合作主义的发展向度是:纠纷解决机制应以力量整合的面目出现,强调不同调解力量的合作;政府力量与社区调解力量合作的结果在于实现一种强制性平衡与整合性均衡,通过政府主导下的基层政府与社区力量之合作实现基层社会的有序与协调;政府力量的选择性介入须严格限制,且把握好介入的适当性,以确保社区/民众的纠纷解决自主性。     

论恢复性司法的本土资源与制度构建

恢复性司法缘起于上世纪70年代的刑事司法实践,并逐渐成为影响传统刑事司法的重要司法范式。恢复性司法是在反思传统司法的基础上产生、发展起来的。可以弥补传统刑事司法过于对抗、忽视被害人等缺陷,从而迅速风靡于西方国家。我国无论是文化观念,还是刑事司法制度与实践,都存在着契合于恢复性司法的因素。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。     

侗款的变迁及其与侗族地区纠纷解决机制研究

随时代的变迁,侗款在组织形式、活动方式、规约等方面发生了一系列变化,其当代的存续形式主要表现为村规民约。侗款纠纷解决功能的运作方式,可以分为两种相互作用的传统运作方式与现代运作方式。通过侗款解决纠纷与通过国家司法解决纠纷之间存在一定的冲突之处,应该从治理的角度来正确对待侗款,从而更好地发挥其对侗族地区民族团结、和谐社会与法治建设的促进作用。     

乡土正义:鲁南周村的纠纷解决

周村的司法实践表明,乡土社会交往的基础是关系网络与生存结构。利益已经成为影响人们构建和维持关系的主要因素。当今的中国村庄面临着两种利益与价值共生的局面。乡土正义就是在这两种利益与价值之间寻求平衡与调和,这不同于西方价值体系中的正义观。     

恢复性行刑功能探析

囿于传统行刑模式的弊端,实践为摆脱困境而自发产生的恢复性行刑展示了其积极的沟通、整合与效率功能。恢复性行刑模式以有益互动为核心,以平等为基础,将服刑人员与管理者、被害人、社区及其他社会参与者带入协商对话的平台。服刑人员在与他者的互动中降低权威者给予的耻辱烙印,获得被害人及社会人员的的原谅认同,最终实现身体与心理的回归,消除犯罪的印记,体现出较强的去标签化功能与提升犯罪控制的功能。恢复性行刑的实现方式则彰显出其潜在功能——传承并超越于传统正义,实现了互利正义。     

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。     

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.     

恢复性司法述议

恢复性司法以恢复原有社会秩序为目的,着重于对被害人所受伤害的补偿以及对犯罪行为人的改造,是对犯罪行为作出的系统性反应。本文结合中外司法实践,探索恢复性司法的模式问题。     

Balancing justice goals: restorative justice practitioners’ views

Despite the importance of facilitators, staff, and volunteers to restorative justice programs, we know very little about what they think about the goals of restorative justice. This paper fills that gap by reporting the findings of a survey of restorative justice practitioners in Nova Scotia, Canada. Participants rated the importance of 29 justice-related goals such as punishment and accountability. The results show how respondents distinguish between, prioritize, and balance competing justice goals. A factor analysis shows how goals cluster together revealing more depth about how practitioners understand goals, such as accountability, that have different meanings depending on the context. The findings are particularly interesting because the restorative justice program in Nova Scotia is deeply embedded in the criminal justice system. The findings speak to concerns about whether programs rooted in the mainstream system risk being diluted by dominant criminal justice system discourses. I conclude that restorative justice practitioners can prioritize the values of restorative justice in a program that is deeply rooted in the mainstream criminal justice system.