Revisionist history,visionary criminology,and needs-based justice

Although there may be some value in debating the question of whatever happened to radical criminology, I believe that it is more productive to think in terms of radical and/or critical continuities in pedagogy, research, and practice that have survived time and can be linked to current efforts in visionary criminology and transformative justice. Examining changes in the study of crime and justice from such a perspective, it can be argued that the antiestablishment criminologies of the year 2003 are not any more marginal, and in fact may be less marginal today than when radical criminology first burst onto the scene in the early 1970s.     

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.     

对程序正义与实体正义之冲突关系的质疑

正义本身就是一个标表各种相互冲突的利益被合理平衡的概念,这种平衡可能动态地体现在某种程序中,也可能静态地体现在某一结果中,因此只存在程序是否合乎正义,结果是否合乎正义的问题,并不存在程序合乎“程序正义”,结果合乎“实体正义”的分别。人权保障和真实发现都是程序所必须平衡的利益要求,它们之间的冲突不应被理解为程序正义与实体正义的冲突。程序正义是结果正义的根据,它们之间也不存在冲突。     

Facing into the wind's teeth: An interview with hal pepinsky

Editor's Note: The title of the interview comes from a poem by William Carlos Williams entitled The Manoeuvre. There Williams talks about seeing two starlings, just before alighting, turning in the air together backwards--but what got to him, he says, was that in doing so, they faced "into the wind's teeth." Commenting on the poem, Denise Levertov points out that, while it is a celebration of life, it also tells us that life sometimes requires adroit manoeuvering, its fullness emerging when we work not against but in cooperation with that which makes it most difficult. The interview speaks to this throughout.     

环境法上的公正

环境法的公正具有自己的特征,环境法上存在着区域公正,国际公正,社会公正和代际公正。区域公正是指在相关区域环境权利与义务的分配是否恰当平衡。国际公正涉及国与国之间享有环境的权利和国际环境义务的分担。社会公正要求将环境行为置于社会背景下认识和解决。代际公正要求现实环境问题的解决方案要考虑到下代人的利益。     

Yoga and restorative justice in prison: An experience of “response‐ability to harms”

Divisions within the contemporary restorative justice movement in the US often manifest in one state‐supported model: balanced and restorative justice (BARJ). Paul McCold, in this symposium frames the problem with BARJ as one of a corruption of restorative justice principles by its foundation in community justice. This article suggests that BARJ and McCold’s critique share a neglect of the transformative potential of restorative justice for realizing social and economic justice. Moreover, recent experience indicates that BARJ policy planning can take place in a way supportive of Social Equity Restorative Justice (SERJ). The time appears opportune for some peacemaking within the movement.     

Justice,Morality, and the Dehumanization of Refugees

Three studies were conducted to test the role of the dehumanization of refugees (through claims that they are immoral) in determining emotional reactions to refugees, attitudes toward refugees, and attitudes toward current refugee policy in Canada. We also examined determinants of such perceptions. In Studies 1 and 2, correlational analyses and structural equation modeling were utilized. In both studies, it was demonstrated that individuals who are higher in social dominance orientation are especially likely to dehumanize refugees, and this dehumanization leads to greater contempt and lack of admiration for refugees, resulting in less favorable attitudes toward the group and toward the nation’s current refugee policy. Study 3 was an experiment in which we examined the effects of information presented about refugees on emotions and attitudes. Results demonstrated that dehumanizing media depictions of refugees as violating appropriate procedures and trying to cheat the system cause greater contempt and lack of admiration for refugees in general, which in turn lead to less favorable attitudes toward the group and less support for the current refugee policy. Results are discussed in terms of the functions that dehumanization may serve, and potential strategies for counteracting such effects. Preparation of this article was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada grant to the first author. Portions of this research were presented at the 2005 EAESP Small Group Meeting on Social Justice and Intergroup Conflict, Lisbon, Portugal, and at the 2005 Meeting of the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology, Wurzburg, Germany     

立法公正的实现与保障机制

立法公正不仅包括立法程序上的公正 ,还包括立法的实体公正 ,而立法实体的公正则是经由程序公正而获得的。立法程序公正的基本要件是程序公开、程序参与、程序自治、程序中立、程序效率等。实现立法公正要进一步完善公众立法的直接参与制度、立法公开制度、立法回避制度以及立法听证制度等     

Reluctant Participants in Restorative Justice? Youthful Offenders and Their Parents

This paper examines offender and parental involvement in the Vermont Juvenile Restorative Panels Program. In this program, juvenile offenders on probation appear before citizen‐run boards to negotiate the terms of their probation, which may include apologies, community service, restitution, and competency development tasks. Victims and parents of the offender also participate. This study reports findings from a qualitative analysis of 22 cases, including observations of panel meetings and interviews with program coordinators, offenders, parents, and victims. We find that offenders vary in level of participation as well as in their willingness to take responsibility. Parents do not understand the program well, worry about their child’s likelihood of compliance, but generally support the goals of the program. The implications of these findings for restorative practices with juveniles are explored in the concluding section.     

Paradigm Muddle: The Threat to Restorative Justice Posed by Its Merger with Community Justice

The restorative justice movement has great potential to reform the way society responds to crime and wrongdoing. One might logically assume that the greatest challenge to the new restorative justice paradigm is the traditional punitive criminal justice paradigm itself. A more immediate threat, however, is posed by merging community justice, another approach to reforming the justice system, with restorative justice. Community justice has superficial similarities to restorative justice but relies on the underlying authoritarian assumptions of the existing criminal justice system and on processes that exclude most of those individuals directly affected by the offense. This paper clarifies and contrasts the key elements of both the restorative justice and the community justice paradigms and explains the threat to restorative justice posed by combining and confusing the two.     

Justice Here and Now: A Personal Reflection on the Restorative and Community Justice Paradigms

Cuba has long had one of the lowest crime rates in Latin America and in the Americas generally. Incidents of crime against women such as rape and domestic violence, for example, appear to be lower in Cuba than in the rest of Latin America and the United States. Community organizations in Cuba play a significant role in controlling criminal activity by generating and sustaining citizen participation, generating an understanding of the nature of community crime, and helping to form partnerships for community policing. Cuba has attempted to obtain citizen participation in order to resolve social problems, including crime, by instilling a sense of community among its citizens and providing them with the structure of mass organizations that mobilize people on local, regional, and national levels. Residents attribute Cuba’s relatively low crime rate to the sense of community created and maintained by such mass organizations. This article focuses on the role that mass organizations and especially Committees for the Defense of the Revolution play in the Cuban experience of community policing and justice.     

我国国家赔偿程序之缺失与完善

我国现行《国家赔偿法》存在许多缺陷,在实践中造成了诸多弊端。除了赔偿范围狭窄、赔偿标准太低等实体方面的原因外,赔偿程序设计不合理也是其重要方面。建议将赔偿委员会设置在人大之下,同时完善赔偿的审理程序和执行程序,改进赔偿费用的支付方式。     

中国民事诉讼立案程序的功能与结构

我国现行诉讼程序在总体框架上呈现结构分立而功能交汇的特征,立案程序在司法行政管理体系上独立于审判程序而在功能上与审判程序混为一体,在当下大调解模式下更与诉外解纷程序之间混沌不清。本文以区分司法的社会责任与职业责任为基础,强调立案程序在区分咨询性质的起诉与起诉意向明确的起诉时不同态度,同时确立了我国诉讼要件审查标准,即须有争议存在,且争议具有民事性(平等主体之间)和法律性,从而为转型时期的中国将非典型案件逐步转化为具有可诉性的案件提供可资参考的抽象标准。     

The longmont community justice partnership: Restorative justice practice as collaboration

This paper documents the application of restorative justice principles using a model which was developed by the Longmont Community Justice Partnership (LCJP) and is being used in other communities in Colorado. It explains the structure and operation of this model as well as addresses some of the challenging issues program participants faced during the startup, development, and maintenance phases of the program. Among other issues we consider community support, team development, evaluation, restorative language, funding, and the limitations of the model. Finally we discuss the way in which this program has potential for other communities which seek to implement restorative justice practices.     

Juvenile Justice in Oregon: Balanced and Restorative Justice in Action

The goals of Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) are to hold juvenile offenders meaningfully accountable, hear and empower crime victims and engage communities both as stakeholders who have been negatively impacted and as advocates to make things right for the crime victim, offender, and community. This article examines how several Oregon juvenile justice agencies have put BARJ into action over the last 25 years, highlighting specific examples of how several agencies have made this the philosophical underpinning of their work. An overview of the philosophical principles, values, and goals that drive this approach is also discussed.     

公正立法与立法公开

公正立法在本质上是一种现代立法理念,在追求立法价值公正的同时,也追求立法程序的公正和立法结果的公正。公正的立法是在公正价值的指导下通过公正的程序而实现的。立法公开不仅是程序公正的组成部分,也是走向公正立法的重要途径。     

Movie review essay

While Paul McCold’s intent to clarify the compatibility of restorative justice and community justice conceptual frameworks is laudable, his effort provides as much confusion as clarity (McCold, 2004 McCold, P. (2004). Paradigm muddle: The threat to restorative justice posed by its merger with community justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 7: 13–35. [Taylor &; Francis Online] , [Google Scholar], this issue). This piece identifies some of the conflicts inherent in the roots of the development and growth of restorative justice. It also raises concerns regarding how restorative justice theoreticians and practitioners consider community, the role of strangers, empowerment, prevention, and punishment within restorative frameworks. The authors of this piece conclude that, while it remains important to safeguard the underlying principles of restorative justice, it is also necessary to remain open to new possibilities and to new ideas.     

复和正义和刑事调解

犯罪自产生以来 ,其恶性随着人类文明的进步而加大 ,相反 ,人类用于对付犯罪的刑罚手段却渐趋轻缓和文明。毫无疑问 ,到目前为止 ,刑罚仍是对付犯罪最为有效的手段之一 ,审判也是解决犯罪问题的主要方式。但由于建立在报应基础之上的刑罚 ,本质上是一种“以恶制恶” ,因此 ,其弊端也是显而易见的。由此 ,在处理犯罪问题时需要引入复和正义 ,并进一步扩大刑事调解范围     

论作为第三种规范的法律正义

将法、正义、法律正义视为同一事物的意念 ,是一个需待澄清的误解性意念。法、正义、法律正义不仅有重合会通的一面 ,更有各自的界限。法是一种常见的制度规范 ,正义是一种高层次伦理规范 ,而法律正义则是融合了法和正义两种要素的第三种规范。法律正义也是一种正义 ,是正义中的基本正义、有形正义和正义中的强者。法律正义也是一种法律规范 ,是高层次法律规范 ,是区别于恶法劣法的良规良法 ,是理想和现实相结合的法律规范。明辨三者的界限 ,方能洞知法有良恶优劣的分别 ,完整地认知法的面貌 ,倾力于建设以良法美制为基础的现代法治国家