Conferencing is a Restorative Justice practice operating in juvenile justice systems in Australia. Some conferences are convened by police, despite research demonstrating that ethnic minority youth often view police as biased or untrustworthy. Justice research in evaluative legal procedures indicates that perceived third party bias and outcomes delivered by a third party affect fairness judgments. Many disputants regard conferences as more fair than court. However, psychological mechanisms underlying fairness judgments in conferences, where offenders participate in outcome decisions, have not been directly investigated. This research program examined the effects of outcome and perceived convenor bias on procedural and distributive justice ratings in conferencing. Past research indicates that people high and low on Hofstede??s power-distance dimension differ in their emphases on outcome and third party bias when forming fairness judgments. This thesis investigated whether power-distance moderated the interactive effect of trust and outcome on fairness judgments in conferences. Study 1 established power-distance variation in a university sample, and similarity with a community sample on perceived police bias. Study 2 confirmed that high power-distance people who consider police biased against them may nonetheless choose to participate in police-convened conferences. Studies 3 and 4 extended previous research examining interactive effects of trust and outcome on justice judgments in evaluative procedures, investigating whether power-distance moderated this effect. No significant effects of power-distance and trust emerged, but the findings demonstrated the importance of outcome fairness (correspondence between outcomes and beliefs) in determining procedural justice. Studies 5, 6 and 7 extended this investigation to conferencing procedures. Studies 6 and 7 employed a computer-simulation, allowing participants to interact with a conference transcript and select outcomes, thereby investigating the effects of trust and power-distance on outcome choice, as well as the effects of trust, power-distance, and outcome on justice evaluations. Studies 5 and 6 were unsuccessful in manipulating bias by varying convenor identity (police versus civilian). Study 7 successfully manipulated bias according to convenor behaviour and revealed that third party bias in conferencing affected outcome choices but not fairness judgments. Results are discussed in terms of implications for culturally-relevant police practices, procedural justice theory and conferencing policy.

Thesis (M.A.)--Humboldt State University, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 173-179). Also available via Humboldt Digital Scholar.

Using an ethnomethodological approach, this research sought to describe how Restorative Justice is integrated into the daily world of the prosecution. This was achieved through the use of in-depth interviews with ten Crown attorneys from different sites in Eastern Canada alongside limited periods of participant observation. This research described how Crown attorneys inhabit a world in which it is necessary to perform an in-depth analysis of the defendant, their characteristics and how much blame can be accorded to them in order to then consider what sanction, if any, is required. Their world also demonstrated that protection of the victim and of society are paramount. Nevertheless, issues such as delay and the reputation of the criminal justice system were shown to be an important factor to also consider as a competent member of the prosecution. Through these methods, participants described a world in which Crowns embody a quasi-judicial role by evaluating and deciding on the proper course of action in regards to a criminal file. When applied to the use of Restorative Justice, these factors helped demonstrate that Crown attorneys thought of it as something which allowed victim and defendant to communicate with one another regarding the consequences of a crime. Restorative Justice was able to be justified through certain factors mentioned above; however, certain other aspects did not find support through them. Indeed Crowns appreciated such a process because they felt it would not endanger victims, that it might contribute to the safety of the public, and because it does not supersede the criminal justice system. Furthermore, for some, it might reduce delay. However, aspects such as attaining victim and or defendant satisfaction did not easily align with the aforementioned factors despite the positive manner in which these potential consequences of Restorative Justice were described by most participants. It was hypothesized then that Restorative Justice is used in a seemingly appropriate manner due to the ways in which it can respond to issues which are important to the prosecution. Other potential positive consequences are simply viewed as beneficial but not offering strong justification for the use of such programs on their own. Indeed, through Restorative Justice, Crowns stay in some measure of control over proceedings while it may also help bolster the legitimacy criminal justice system by responding to certain criticisms levelled against it. Thus, to a certain degree, Crowns are able to reconcile the two different approaches by highlighting the benefits it brings to the criminal justice system while not drawing attention to the ways it does not.

In this paper, I argue that we can identify policies that can increase victim satisfaction with traditional criminal justice systems through analyzing factors that increase victim satisfaction with restorative justice process. First, this paper defines key terms, including “restorative justice,” “traditional criminal justice systems” and “victim.” Next, it analyzes the current literature and identifies why increasing victim satisfaction in traditional criminal justice systems is important. Third, it looks at the state of victim satisfaction with traditional criminal justice systems, and identifies factors that contribute to low satisfaction. Fourth, this paper analyzes the literature examining restorative justice and victim satisfaction, and identifies key factors within restorative justice processes that improve victim satisfaction. Finally, having identified the problems with the traditional criminal justice system and the best practices within restorative justice systems, I propose a number of process changes for traditional criminal justice systems that could increase victim satisfaction.

The present research seeks to identify the risks, rewards and challenges associated with hypothetical restorative justice based responses to sexual misconduct at the University of Oregon. Prior to this project here was limited research directly applicable to identifying these risks, rewards and challenges because no university-based restorative justice programs designed to respond to sexual misconduct existed to be studied. The present research uses a literature review to investigate the nature of restorative justice, sexual misconduct, and the laws and statutes that govern both at the University of Oregon. The literature review is supplemented by qualitative data gathered from a series of personal interviews with specialists on the subject. The research shows that restorative justice offers a potentially valuable supplement to existing university responses to sexual misconduct, albeit one that has a variety of limitations and barriers that would need to be surmounted in order for it to be beneficial.

A proposta desta pesquisa baseia-se num diálogo entre Psicanálise e Direito, através da função do testemunho na Justiça Restaurativa. Para tanto, primeiramente aponta algumas das principais problemáticas na articulação dessas duas áreas, através de autores da psicanálise, principalmente. Em seguida, realiza uma breve contextualização da crítica sobre o desenvolvimento do sistema jurídico (com M. Foucault) e da questão da penalidade e a partir daí contextualiza a proposta Justiça Restaurativa. Dessa proposta, depreende a questão do perdão e da culpa, aqui abordados pelo viés da psicanálise e da filosofia (com J. Derrida e H. Arent) e aponta, ainda, para questões advindas da filosofia do Direito (através de F. Ost), como sobre o lugar de Juiz, entre outras. Por fim, sublinha a questão da performatividade dos atos de fala, critica a função do testemunho e suas relações com a memória, com a história e, ainda, com a Utopia. Como metodologia, se vale da pesquisa em psicanálise. / This research's proposition is based on a dialogue between Psychoanalysis and Law, through the testimony's functions on Restorative Justice. Therefore, primarily it points some of the main articulational issues of both areas, through psychoanalysis authors, principally. After, it does a brief critical contexting about the development of the law system (with M. Foucault) and of the matter of penalty and based on this it contexts the proposition of Restorative Justice. From this proposition, it infers the matters of forgiveness and guilt, boarded from the perspective of psychoanalysis and philosophy (with J. Derrida and H. Arent) and points, although, to matters come from Law's philosophy (through F. Ost), as the place of the Judge, among others. Finally, it underlines the matter of the performactivity of the speeching act, criticizes the testimony's function and its relations to memory, to history, and even to Utopia. As methodology, it exploits of the psychoanalysis' research.

A proposta desta pesquisa baseia-se num diálogo entre Psicanálise e Direito, através da função do testemunho na Justiça Restaurativa. Para tanto, primeiramente aponta algumas das principais problemáticas na articulação dessas duas áreas, através de autores da psicanálise, principalmente. Em seguida, realiza uma breve contextualização da crítica sobre o desenvolvimento do sistema jurídico (com M. Foucault) e da questão da penalidade e a partir daí contextualiza a proposta Justiça Restaurativa. Dessa proposta, depreende a questão do perdão e da culpa, aqui abordados pelo viés da psicanálise e da filosofia (com J. Derrida e H. Arent) e aponta, ainda, para questões advindas da filosofia do Direito (através de F. Ost), como sobre o lugar de Juiz, entre outras. Por fim, sublinha a questão da performatividade dos atos de fala, critica a função do testemunho e suas relações com a memória, com a história e, ainda, com a Utopia. Como metodologia, se vale da pesquisa em psicanálise. / This research's proposition is based on a dialogue between Psychoanalysis and Law, through the testimony's functions on Restorative Justice. Therefore, primarily it points some of the main articulational issues of both areas, through psychoanalysis authors, principally. After, it does a brief critical contexting about the development of the law system (with M. Foucault) and of the matter of penalty and based on this it contexts the proposition of Restorative Justice. From this proposition, it infers the matters of forgiveness and guilt, boarded from the perspective of psychoanalysis and philosophy (with J. Derrida and H. Arent) and points, although, to matters come from Law's philosophy (through F. Ost), as the place of the Judge, among others. Finally, it underlines the matter of the performactivity of the speeching act, criticizes the testimony's function and its relations to memory, to history, and even to Utopia. As methodology, it exploits of the psychoanalysis' research.

Can punishment, a practice which involves the deliberate infliction of suffering, be justified? Retributivists and consequentialists argue that punishment can be justified, whereas abolitionists argue that it cannot. Retributivists argue that punishment is justified because wrongdoers deserve it, whereas punishment is justified for consequentialists because it is beneficial for society. A popular form of abolitionism is restorative justice, which is the view that all those affected by crime (perpetrators, victims and members of society) should be reconciled. In this thesis I argue that retributivist justifications for punishment are mistaken, and argue in favour of a consequentialist view. I also argue that consequentialism can accommodate the valuable features of restorative justice while avoiding the challenges faced by it. My arguments against retributivism will turn on a thought experiment. The experiment is designed to draw out the fundamental retributivist intuition that people who cause harm deserve to suffer harm in return, yet excludes most of the principles retributivists would use to justify the intuition. I will go on to argue that, even if the retributivist considerations did apply to the experiment, they would still not justify the claim that wrongdoers deserve to be punished. Most of the retributivist considerations are, therefore, not necessary for the intuition, and none of the considerations are sufficient for it. The retributivist considerations are, I contend, rationalisations, as the claim that wrongdoers deserve to suffer is based, not on good reasons, but on an unreliable intuition. I shall argue that the consequentialist considerations, while not being necessary, are sufficient for the claim that wrongdoers should be punished, and they should be punished, I maintain, in the interests of preventing greater harm from occurring.

M.A. / Many countries have shown dissatisfaction and frustration with the formal punitive justice system. There is a resurging interest in preserving and strengthening traditional and customary justice practices, which has led to an outcry for alternative responses to crime and for social order. This requires the involvement of all parties, including the victim, offender and community, in participating and resolving conflict and addressing its consequences. This study addressed the following question: What are the roles, functions and competencies that social workers require in restorative justice? A review of the literature compared the different justice theories and, ultimately, restorative justice. Restorative justice, as a growing movement, aims to change the direction of criminal law by focusing on the needs of victims and repairing harms to the communities. The victim is afforded an opportunity in court as well as outside the court by actively participating in the outcome of the sentence of the offender. The offender, on the other hand, is directly confronted with the responsibility for the wrong and is more likely to do something positive for the victim. The community‟s susceptible, healing approach offers a new way of dealing with crime. Restorative justice programmes are, in some instances, based on local decision-making and community-building. This attitude promotes and encourages a peaceful expression of conflict, tolerance and inclusiveness which builds respect for diversity and enhances responsible community practices.

M.A. / Restorative justice is a new way of thinking about crime. Restorative justice ensures that the needs of the victims are not forgotten and it sets about repairing the harm caused to victims. In restorative justice, victims of crime are placed in the centre of the criminal court. It was of great importance to find out how the victims of crime perceive restorative justice. Eight victims of crime committed by juvenile offenders in Malamulele were selected to participate in the study. An exploratory study was conducted to gain insight into the feelings of the victims of crime towards restorative justice. To find out what meaning victims of crime attach to restorative justice, qualitative research methodology was utilized. Information was collected through a semi-structured interview to obtain a detailed picture of the victims’ perceptions on restorative justice by using an interview schedule. Non-probability purpose sampling was used to select the easily available victims of crime. It was discovered that the respondents perceived restorative justice as a relevant way and tool of settling the dispute face to face through reconciliation, peace and forgiveness. Recommendations are based on the findings to implement a restorative justice programme and to involve the victims of crime in the justice system. Recommendations for further research are presented. / Ms. H. Ellis