The myth of popular justice under communism: A comparative view of the USSR and Poland

This paper describes two ‘popular justice’ institutions which exist in both the USSR and Poland: people's assessors and social courts (workers' courts and residential tribunals). An attempt is made to assess these developments in light of the official national ideology. In addition, these institutions are placed within the context of contemporary Western debates on popular justice in order to test the applicability of Western ideas to the reality of Soviet-style communism. While the paper does not attempt to assess the adequacy of the critical Western voices which warn against the dangers or illusory advantages of community justice in Western democracies, it demonstrates that these ideas are indeed validated when tested within the communist reality. The social courts tend not only to reflect the authoritarian relations prevailing in the communist economy, but also serve to perpetuate them. The lay assessors who accompany judges in ordinary courts are extremely passive and their influence on the process and outcome of the adjudication seems to be minimal. Above all, they cannot influence the law itself or the legal structures in which they are participating.     

A community response to a 9/11 hate crime: Restorative justice through dialogue

Nearly two hours after the September 11 terrorist attacks, a hate crime was committed against the Islamic Cultural Center in Eugene, Oregon. Rather than following the conventional criminal justice process, the director of the center and his wife chose to engage in a process of restorative dialogue with other community members and the offender himself. This case study of moving from hatred to healing occurred in the larger context of restorative justice, a movement that is now developing in many hundreds of communities in more than 17 countries. Social workers committed to community practice have played an active role in this reform movement, which has developed over the past two decades.     

Restorative justice: the indigenous justice system

Dramatically different beliefs about justice will produce dramatically different methods for achieving justice. The beliefs underlying the traditional Indigenous restorative justice systems, systems that dramatically differ from the European-based system practiced in the USA are presented. The discussion highlights the legacy of colonialism for tribal communities and the resilience and creative resistance that have continued to characterize the spirit and ingenuity of Indigenous peoples.     

Critical justice consciousness: Social injustice and the criminal justice system

In this essay I examine the importance of social justice to my identity and the changing interpretation of my “justice consciousness” resulting from changes in my work life. Drawing on my academic experience as well as my experience as an attorney, I describe the meaning that social justice has for me. I also examine the connections that I see between social injustice and the operation of the critical justice system.     

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.     

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。     

International criminal justice: reflections on the past and the future

While Nuremberg constitutes a watershed in the evolution of international law with its establishment of the fundamental principle of individual criminal responsibility under international law it has not left much else by way of precedent for the subsequent international criminal tribunals. The adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 827 establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and Resolution 955 (1994) establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, set the groundwork for a new model of hybrid tribunals, with the establishment of the Special Court for Sierra Leone in 2002, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia in 2006, and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in 2007. Perhaps one of the greatest legacies of these ad hoc and hybrid courts and tribunals has been paving the way for the establishment of a permanent international criminal court. However, they have also brought about the development of international criminal law through judicial interpretation, elaborating, inter alia, the elements of the crime of genocide as detailed in the 1948 Genocide Convention, the judicial recognition of the concept of joint criminal enterprise and the principle that national arrangements for amnesties in respect of international crimes are no bar to prosecution for such crimes at an international tribunal. In view of the completion strategies of the ad hoc Tribunals, as well as of the SCSL, this article delves into some of their legacies and outlines some of the difficulties and challenges they have faced, while identifying areas of best practice in order for the newly‐operational International Criminal Court to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past or even reinventing new wheels.     

Presidential address: Juvenile justice at the crossroads: Presidential address to the academy of criminal justice sciences

Three interacting factors appear to significantly affect our treatment of youths and thus our juvenile justice policy: ideology, the media, and politics. As a result of these factors, although juvenile violent crime is decreasing, legislatures still advocate a harsh, punitive stance toward youthful offenders. Legislative initiatives have resulted in determinate sentencing for juveniles, more youths handled by the adult criminal court, and more youths sentenced to adult institutions. Recent evidence suggests that the public supports more prevention and early intervention strategies for youths and favors rehabilitation rather than punishment. These conflicting trends suggest that we are at a crossroads: the juvenile justice system can continue its harsh, reactive stance, or it can choose a more proactive approach. The members of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences have an opportunity to play an active role in the development of criminal justice policy.     

Criminal justice faculty and criminal justice students: A case for the missing data

This article reviews the most current criminal justice education research. It examines the interrelationship between the work of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, the Joint Commission on Criminology and Criminal Justice Education and Standards, and the National Advisory Commission on Higher Education for Police, and describes and compares some of their more important findings. Discussed are types of criminal justice programs; characteristics of criminal justice faculty, particularly in terms of earned academic degrees; agency work experience; commitment to research and teaching; types of criminal justice curricula, as typified by certain educational philosophies; and criminal justice students. Although this article notes several areas with which future research might become fruitfully involved, the area in need of most immediate attention, and the area that current research has all but ignored, is the criminal justice student.     

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.     

Two paradigms of justice: criminal vs survivor justice in Africa

African countries continue to experience civil wars and other low-level violent conflicts. An issue relating to the intractable nature of postcolonial violence and how it should be resolved, is what is the potential for advancing contemporary peace processes and negotiated agreements through the notion of survivor justice? Two paradigms of justice have emerged in Africa in response to mass violence: criminal justice based on the example of the Nuremberg trials; and survivor justice based on political reform and exemplified by the cases of South Africa and Sudan. These two paradigms of justice are compared, with the context undergirding the debate and assumptions of each explored, and how this related to the issues of building peace in Africa. The guiding question is whether civil wars can be ended in courts. I argue that where a decisive military victory is untenable, survivor justice, that is political reform combined with judicial reconciliation, is the best way to resolve Africa’s conflicts. The example of South Africa’s political settlement and the reconciliation process in Rwanda offer examples of solutions for conflict transition to peace. Criminal justice processes – absent a decisive military victory – can act to delay and prevent peace and resolution.