浅论恢复性司法及其本土化构建

作为一项刑事司法革新运动,恢复性司法以其全新的理念和良好的实践效果而越来越受到各国刑事司法理论界和实务界的重视。但是恢复性司法在我国目前还面临着自身定位、理念以及制度设计上的种种缺陷,这已成为阻碍其在我国进一步发展的瓶颈。本文试从探讨恢复性司法制度相关利弊的基础上来对其在我国如何更好地发展做一论述。     

构建中国式恢复性司法若干问题的思考——以上海市轻伤案件委托人民调解为视点

"恢复性司法"是近年来国际上一项新的刑事司法制度.指在案件处理过程中让犯罪人与被害人面对面接触,通过犯罪人的道歉、赔偿、社会服务等,使被害人因犯罪所造成的物质精神损失得到补偿,使被害人因犯罪影响的生活及时恢复常态.同时也使犯罪人通过积极负责任的行为重新融入社区,并赢得被害人和社会的谅解。恢复性司法作为一项刑事司法改革措施.发端于二十世纪六七十年代的北美.最早的努力可以溯源于六十年代少年司法系统内被害人和加害者调解程序。1999年7月28日,联合国通过了《制定和实施刑事司法调解和恢复性司法措施》,2000年7月27日,联合国又通过了《关于在刑事事项中采用恢复性方案的基本原则》。在这一刑事司法改革浪潮的影响下,上海市大力推进轻伤害案件委托人民调解工作.这可以说是中国式恢复性司法模式的雏形。一、构建中国式恢复性司法的利弊因素分析     

建立少年恢复性司法模式刍议

恢复性司法是一种全新的刑事法治模式,本文试从恢复性司法的内容、特征与价值功能等方面进行考察,并对其理论内核进行评析。在目前恢复性司法在我国的理论研究与实践现状的基础上,提出在少年司法制度中首先探索建立恢复性司法模式。     

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。     

恢复性司法在我国的试行及其理论研究述评

近年来，在我国一些地方恢复性司法实践已经出现。尽管在国家法律制度层面来看，我国对恢复性司法基本处于排斥的状态，但是，国内学者对恢复性司法的本土化研究所取得的成果，对推进我国的刑事司法改革，仍然具有一定的理论价值。     

浅谈恢复性司法对完善我国刑事司法制度的借鉴作用

恢复性司法是西方国家在刑事司法领域推行的一项新制度,由于其坚持"修复社会关系、保障被害人合法权益",弥补了以国家追诉主义为中心的刑事司法制度的缺陷,被越来越多的国家所接受,借鉴其先进理念,对完善我国刑事司法制度具有较大意义。     

恢复性司法在青少年犯罪领域的适用

恢复性司法是近些年以来对传统司法反思。本文通过介绍恢复性司法的主要理念,以求从恢复性司法中找到对待青少年犯罪的契合点。     

恢复性司法中国化的可行性思考

恢复性司法是指通过恢复性程序实现恢复性结果的犯罪处理方法。所谓恢复性程序是指“在调解人的帮助下，受害人和罪犯及受犯罪影响的任何其他个人或社区成员．共同积极参与解决由犯罪造成的问题的程序”。所谓恢复性结果，是指通过赔偿、道歉、社区服务等非刑罚和非监禁手段，使被害人因犯罪造成的物质和精神损失得到补偿，使犯罪人通过积极负责的行为融入社会，从而使被犯罪侵害的社会关系得以恢复常态。     

也议恢复性司法——以刑事一体化为视角

在构建和谐社会的历史背景下,在宽严相济刑事政策的指导下,恢复性司法成为了刑事法领域讨论的热门话题之一。恢复性司法是刑事一体化思想的实体展开,由于恢复性司法的积极意义,在司法实务界进行了广泛的积极实践。本文以刑事一体化为导向进一步探讨了恢复性司法。     

平和司法：恢复性司法的本土化——关于平和司法理念与实践的调研报告

平和司法是在学习国外恢复性司法理念、实证分析烟台市检察机关的办案实践、考察外地检察机关的先进经验的基础上提出的全新命题,是恢复性司法本土化的一个尝试。平和司法可分为司法心态(基础要素)、司法模式(手段要素)、司法境界(目的要素)三个层面,与恢复性司法最大的不同就在于它的层次性和层次之间的互动性。平和司法在执法理念上与传统的司法理念有很大的转变,与宽严相济的刑事政策相适应,符合社会主义法治理念的本质要求。实践平和司法将对维护社会和谐稳定、预防犯罪、节约司法资源、维护被害人和犯罪人合法权益具有积极意义。     

Restorative Justice in India

‘Restorative Justice’ reflects a crimino-victim balanced justice system where equal justice to offenders and victims is ensured. There are four potent features of Restorative Justice: repair, restore, reconcile, and reintegrate the offenders and victims to each other and to their shared environments and communities. There are many examples within Indian criminological literature that thoroughly explain the practice of restorative justice in India. The kings who ruled in various parts of the country had practiced restorative justice in a well thought out and traditional manner. Much of Gandhian philosophy and practice is based on restorative justice principles including the participatory practices of fairness and equality. Though there is a limited amount of literature on the present restorative justice practices available in India, this paper attempts to explain restorative justice practices across the continent from the view point of society and legal provision.     

Revisiting Informal Justice: Restorative Justice and Democratic Professionalism

Restorative justice is a form of informal justice growing rapidly among criminal justice practitioners. It decenters the focus of criminal justice from the offender breaking a law of the state to the harm caused the victim and community. Resolution is said to come from offenders taking responsibility and making amends for the harm done and from communities supporting the victim and providing offenders with opportunities and skills to reintegrate as contributing members.
Restorative justice theory largely ignores the role of professionals in the criminal justice process, and yet professionals have played a dominant part in initiating many restorative justice programs. Several theoretical traditions recognize professionals as being important intermediaries between citizens and the state. The theory of democratic professionalism argues that professionals can play crucial roles in increasing and improving democratic participation in public affairs. This article examines two functioning restorative justice programs to flesh out what democratic professionalism might look like in operation—what tasks professionals perform and what citizen involvement means to the professionals. We argue that restorative justice cannot get along without professionals and that democratic professionalism may help restorative justice to avoid some of the problems associated with other approaches to informal justice by increasing true community participation but balancing it with concern for individuals' rights.     

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.     

Ambivalent Sovereigns and Restorative Justice: Exploring Conditions of Possibility and Impossibility for Restorative Justice in a Post-communicative Age

This contribution hopes to be able to contribute to answering the question: whither restorative justice? The restorative justice (RJ) movement has arrived at an existential crossroads. In this contribution an attempt is made to analyse how some of the origins of the RJ movement could be located in the emergence and crystallization of a new form of life (“control society”) in the wake of the Second World War. At the heart of this form of life one might be able to discern, on the one hand, a desire for and will to radical sovereignty, and, on the other, a resulting awareness of ambivalence. Whilst these aspects of post-war life have formed the backdrop of developments in RJ, and have therefore formed part of its conditions of possibility, one might now wonder if, in a post-communicative age such as ours, those very aspects have now become part of its conditions of impossibility. The argument explored in this contribution however holds that elements in the aforementioned form of life also hold potential for the re-thinking of restorative justice theory and practice.     

谱写司法行政新篇章

在新中国六十华诞来临之际，司法部部长吴爱英欣然接受新华社等媒体采访，全面客观地回顾和总结了60年来司法行政事业的历程、成就和经验。     

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.     

Evaluating Restorative Justice Programs in Taiwan

This paper aims to evaluate four restorative justice programs in Taiwan: (1) a mediation system; (2) deferred prosecution and conditional suspended sentence; (3) a youth justice system; and (4) the Taiwan Restorative Justice Initiative. In this paper, models proposed in Marshall (Restorative justice: An overview. London: Home Office, 1999) and Braithwaite (British Journal of Criminology 42:563–577, 2002b) are used as criteria to evaluate the four programs. Based on governmental documents, official statistics, and the findings of previous empirical studies, this paper will examine whose needs and power is focused and what types of value are highlighted in those four programs. This paper finds that current restorative justice programs in Taiwan place greater emphasis on offenders than on other parties such as victims and communities. In addition, maximizing and emergent standards that Braithwaite identifies are implemented more in Taiwan’s restorative justice programs than constraining standards. This paper suggests that restorative justice practices in Taiwan need to be more concerned with victims’ needs and interests, and to strengthen constraining types of restorative justice values.