“Walking in her shoes”: The Impact of Victim Impact Panels on Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence

Restorative justice models have had success with some issues within the criminal justice system; however, advocates and researchers within the intimate partner violence practice community have been reluctant to embrace this model. Criminal justice responses for intimate partner violence continue to be founded on a blend of retributive and rehabilitative justice models. Despite this reluctance, use of the restorative justice intervention of victim impact panels, may have targeted utility for increasing perpetrators’ empathy for their victims. The author 2examined responses from perpetrators who were mandated to participate in a victim impact panel experience as part of the coordinated community system response to intimate partner violence.     

The Victims’ Directive and What Victims Want From Restorative Justice

Following fierce campaigning by victims’ groups, the European Commission has entered into a process of legislative and policy reforms with the aim of repositioning the victim in criminal proceedings. By November 2015, member states will need to have demonstrated that they have modified their domestic laws to give effect to the Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support, and protection of victims of crime. For the first time, restorative justice is explicitly regulated at EU legal level, as the Directive aims to establish a baseline for its safe implementation across member states. With this EU-wide policy backdrop and using original data, the article posits evidence-based recommendations for the implementation of the Directive. The research was carried out in 2013–14 as part of the “Restorative Justice in Europe” project co-financed by the European Commission. The research took place in the United Kingdom and combined desk research and qualitative research strategies with victims, while it triangulated its findings with follow-up surveys with offenders and professionals.     

论刑事和解在我国司法实践中的完善——以恢复正义理论为视角

近年来,肇始于西方的刑事和解成为了我国刑事法理论界和实务界研究的热点,司法机关更是对其进行了试点并取得了一定的成绩。由于对刑事和解内涵的把握存在一定的偏差,实践中司法机关大多把金钱赔偿作为实现加害人与被害人和解的唯一手段,致使公众对刑事和解不甚了解。以恢复正义理论为视角,从提倡和解手段的多样性、鼓励社区参加刑事和解程序和设立司法机关监督下的独立的调解机构等方面入手,对完善我国司法实践中的刑事和解大有裨益。     

抽象行政行为司法审查之学理基础及审查标准

抽象行政行为作为具体行政行为得以实施和发挥效力的前提和依据,对其进行司法审查具有重大的理论和现实意义。文章着重探讨了对抽象行政行为进行司法审查的学理基础,并提出了对抽象行政行为司法审查的标准:应坚持法制统一的标准,稳定性、连续性的标准和合理解释的标准。     

恢复性司法与和谐社会

构建和谐社会,已成为时下中国的一个重大时代主题,被称为“新的伟大长征”①。在这一理念指导下,刑事法治也可以从多方面予以改进。流行于当今西方社会的刑事司法新动向——恢复性司法,与构建和谐社会在理念方面有诸多契合之处:其比较全面地照顾到了有关当事各方,有利于建设和平社区;简化了犯罪的处理程序,采取经济的责任形式,大大降低了刑法的成本;有助于实现刑法预防犯罪的目的;有助于实现刑法保障人权的功能。     

恢复性行刑：和谐、健康与回归社会

恢复性行刑的最终目的是恢复正常的社会关系和社会秩序。它包括对罪犯的再社会化,对罪犯社会谋生技能的训练或修复,对罪犯健全人格的修复和教育,对罪犯社会道德与良知的恢复等。恢复性行刑所涉及的主体包括国家、社会、服刑罪犯、受害人以及社区公众。为此,恢复性行刑的价值集中体现在:尊重、和谐、安全、健康和回归社会。     

刑事司法专业人才培养特色探析

目前,监管改造工作急需一支综合素质高、实战能力强的刑事司法人才队伍。走院校专业化培养的道路,发展刑事司法本科教育,为监管一线培养集执法、管理和教育为一体的复合型人才是创建现代化文明监狱的需要,是预防犯罪、维护社会稳定的需要,是推进我国法制化建设进程的需要。     

恢复性司法：刑事司法理念的重构性转折

恢复性司法是一个具有整合意义的概念,它将现代刑法改革中的一切理念和主张进行了最深层次的整理。对未来刑法制度和刑事司法运作的方向、功能与模式具有重要的重构意义。     

构建我国司法改革学

无论是学术界还是实务界的努力 ,我国司法改革所取得的成就都不是令人满意的 ,解决问题的有效方式是 :反思——重构。本着对我国司法改革重构的思考 ,作者对当前司法改革的三种主流研究范式进行了反思 ,在此基础上提出构建我国司法改革学 ,并对司法改革和司法改革学两个概念进行了界定     

Questioning Appeals to Community within Crime Prevention and Control

This article casts a critical eye over some of the (often ignored) assumptions which underlie recent appeals to community in crime prevention and control. The article considers the philosophical origins, ambiguities and tensions within such appeals. In so doing, it draws explicitly upon the growth of community safety and to a lesser extent restorative justice in Britain and considers some of the implications to which this shift may give rise. In particular, it focuses upon the manner in which appeals to community converge and collide with changing social relations which may undermine their progressive potential. Specific attention is given to the implications of: increasing social and spatial dislocation; the commodification of security; and policy debates about a growing underclass. It is argued that there is much confusion as to how, and to what extent, communities can contribute to the construction of social order. Within the dynamics of community safety and crime control practices there are dangers that security differentials may become increasingly significant characteristics of wealth and status with implications for social exclusion. This questions the extent to which crime is an appropriate vehicle around which to (re)construct open and tolerant communities.