Making space for restorative justice in criminal justice and criminology curricula and courses

Restorative justice, rooted in the practices of indigenous people across the globe, has grown exponentially in both theory and practice since its beginnings in Canada in the 1970s. Restorative justice has influenced the interactions between offenders and victims, helped community members address crime and develop self-efficacy, and changed the way some countries rebuild after a history of oppression. Despite these restorative justice influenced changes, many criminology and criminal justice programs pay scant attention to restorative justice in curricula. This paper will examine ways to include restorative justice in criminal justice and criminology curriculum and the challenges involved in the process. The paper will then examine how the Law and Justice Department at Central Washington University has incrementally added restorative justice components to its curriculum, culminating most recently with the addition of a Community and Social Justice course. The paper will conclude with several examples of classroom activities and assignments that have helped connect students with the theory and practice of restorative justice.     

Socrates in Aotearoa: teaching restorative justice in New Zealand

Much introductory material on restorative justice presents the subject from an idealistic point of view, in which assertions of its ethical superiority and advantages over retributive justice systems frequently go unchallenged. In New Zealand, this problem is particularly pronounced, as there is often a naïve acceptance that restorative justice is more culturally appropriate for offenders and victims with indigenous backgrounds. This article argues for a more nuanced approach to the teaching of restorative justice, using critical investigation of claims concerning its efficacy and examination of its problems in order to explore its promises and realities. One possibility for such an approach is the use of the Socratic Method, a teaching method with a demonstrated ability to engage students and foster critical thinking, but one that has also received criticism for its ability to intimidate and demean students. This method is widely used in law schools, but much less so in the social sciences. This article explores the use of this method in a New Zealand university class on restorative justice, examining both student perceptions of the use of the Socratic Method, as well as the efficacy of this approach in terms of knowledge retention and critical engagement.     

Restorative justice in prisons

Restorative justice (RJ) has found significant utility outside the prison setting. For many reasons, it has not received the same level of consideration inside the institution. While not every case can, or perhaps should be considered for restorative justice processing inside the prison, some could easily fall into the broad purview range of restorative and transformative justice. We provide examples of RJ practices that exist in some prisons focusing on: offending behavior and victim awareness programs, community service work, and victim‐offender mediation, as well as prison systems that exhibit a RJ philosophy. Also considered are the effectiveness of prison RJ practices, and the limitations of such efforts. Although RJ has the potential to have a positive impact on the work of prisons and the experience of imprisonment, it has not found wide acceptance and is currently limited to a relatively small number of prisons and then often only delivered in partial form. We believe that RJ has a realistic future in prison settings and that the contradictions that may be identified are not debilitating.     

Restoring the social: offender reintegration in a risky world

How to manage and reintegrate offenders released from prison is a vexing problem for governments. The challenge of reintegration has forced a pendulum shift in corrections toward a more social-psychological understanding of the nature of offender release, after decades of purely psychological paradigm dominance. This article explains how reentry problems and practice encompass the shift in a context of a risk-centric and averse public. New reentry models such as Circles of Support and Accountability demonstrate an approach to reentry that draws upon the tenets of restorative justice and desistance theories. Using qualitative data on reintegration within New Zealand, this article contributes to our understanding of the problems for correctional departments to facilitate reintegration in the context of risk managerialism, and theorizes about the dimensions and implications of “restorative reentry.”     

论程序法定原则

刑事程序法定原则是现代法治的一项基本原则,它体现在刑事诉讼领域的各个方面。本文在阐述程序法定原则基本含义及渊源的基础上,论述了这一原则在我国的立法体现及司法适用,强调了贯彻这一原则,限制强大的司法机关权限,保护相对弱小的公民个人权益的重要性。     

论海峡两岸逃犯移交中的“政治犯罪”

＂政治犯罪不引渡＂是国际引渡的重要原则,但由于＂政治犯罪＂概念本身难以界定等原因,导致该原则的适用具有很大的不确定性。当今国际司法协助中,政治犯罪不引渡不断受到限制,产生了越来越多的＂例外＂,甚至已经有取消的理论主张和实践。在海峡两岸的区际刑事司法互助中,具体而言就是在逃犯移交---＂刑事犯和刑事嫌疑犯＂的遣返中,同样面临着是否适用＂政治犯罪不移交＂的问题。作为区际刑事司法互助,海峡两岸应当摒弃政治犯罪不移交原则。     

能动司法：反思与超越

主持人：何勤华（华东政法大学校长、教授、博士生导师） 当一个热点问题处在热炒之中或之后,一个严肃的学者既不应当盲目地追捧,也不应当随意地否定,他最需要做的也许是客观地对待,冷静地反思,并在反思中实现超越。以下四位法学博士正是基于这种学术态度和追求,对于“能动司法”这个当下中国的热点问题进行了深入而独到的研讨。     

毒品犯罪刑事对策探究

毒品犯罪是全球的社会公害,由毒品问题引发的犯罪在迅速上升,成为影响社会稳定的重要因素。毒品犯罪的惩治与防范是我们无法回避的问题。从刑事对策上来说,至少应从两个方面来努力：一要严密刑事法网;二要加强刑事司法。     

论我国小额诉讼程序的构建

构建小额诉讼程序有利用于合理分流民事案件、减轻法院负担、实现司法的大众化.借鉴国外经验并基于我国实际,可将小额诉讼程序适用事件的数额界定在5000元左右,且仅适用于小额钱债纠纷.为防止诉权的滥用,可规定同一原告在同一小额法庭每年依据小额诉讼程序请求审理、裁判的次数不得超过10次.小额诉讼程序可遵循以下规则:以当事人亲自出庭和一次开庭审理为原则,省略证据调查程序,简化裁判文书的制作,实行一审终审等.     

刑法中社会危害性概念的机能分析

尽管国内刑法学界对社会危害性概念否定意见颇多，但社会危害性概念具有独特的立法机能和司法机能。立法机能表现为作为犯罪化与非犯罪化、刑罚配置和犯罪分类的重要依据；司法机能表现在规范评价、司法出罪和量刑基准等方面。在现有的犯罪构成理论体系下，进一步明确社会危害性概念的内容和完善社会危害性的判断标准，较之于将其从注释刑法学中消解，或许更为妥当。