The Experts below are selected from a list of 17553 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Kathleen Daly - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
what is Restorative Justice fresh answers to a vexed question
Victims & Offenders, 2016Co-Authors: Kathleen DalyAbstract:It has become commonplace to say that Restorative Justice cannot be defined. I argue that Restorative Justice can and must be defined concretely as a Justice mechanism. I develop this argument with four points: (1) Restorative Justice is not a type of Justice, it is a Justice mechanism; (2) retributive Justice is not a type of Justice or a Justice mechanism; (3) Restorative Justice is one of many Justice mechanisms under an innovative Justice umbrella; and (4) Restorative Justice can be defined. The way forward is to assess and compare a variety of Justice mechanisms, which reside on a continuum from conventional to innovative. In time, the Justice mechanisms studied may come to matter more than the concept of Restorative Justice.
-
feminist engagement with Restorative Justice
Theoretical Criminology, 2006Co-Authors: Kathleen Daly, Julie StubbsAbstract:We analyse five areas of feminist engagement with Restorative Justice (RJ): theories of Justice; the role of retribution in criminal Justice; studies of gender (and other social relations) in RJ processes; the appropriateness of RJ for partner, sexual or family violence; and the politics of race and gender in making Justice claims. Feminist engagement has focused almost exclusively on the appropriateness of RJ for sexual, partner or family violence, but there is a need to broaden the focus. We identify a wider spectrum of theoretical, political and empirical problems for future feminist analysis of RJ.
-
the limits of Restorative Justice
2006Co-Authors: Kathleen DalyAbstract:Kathleen Daly is Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University (Brisbane). She writes on gender, race, crime and Justice; and on Restorative Justice and Indigenous Justice. Her book, Gender, Crime, and Punishment (1994) received the Michael Hindelang award from the American Society of Criminology. From 1998 to 2004, she received three major Australian Research Council grants to direct a program of research on Restorative Justice and the race and gender politics of new Justice practices in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. She is Vice-President of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology.
-
gendered violence and Restorative Justice the views of victim advocates
Violence Against Women, 2005Co-Authors: Sarah Curtisfawley, Kathleen DalyAbstract:The use of Restorative Justice for gendered violence has been debated in the feminist literature for some time. Critics warn that it is inappropriate because the process and outcomes are not sufficiently formal or stringent, and victims may be revictimized. Proponents assert that a Restorative Justice process may be better for victims than court because it holds offenders accountable and gives victims greater voice. This article presents what victim advocates in two Australian states think about using Restorative Justice for gendered violence. We find that although victim advocates have concerns and reservations about Restorative Justice, most saw positive elements.
-
Restorative Justice the real story
Punishment & Society, 2002Co-Authors: Kathleen DalyAbstract:Advocates’ claims about Restorative Justice contain four myths: (1) Restorative Justice is the opposite of retributive Justice; (2) Restorative Justice uses indigenous Justice practices and was the...
Thalia Gonzalez - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
socializing schools addressing racial disparities in discipline through Restorative Justice
Social Science Research Network, 2014Co-Authors: Thalia GonzalezAbstract:Restorative Justice as an approach to improving the school learning environment and student behavior is based on three core principles: repairing harm, involving stakeholders, and transforming community relationships. Since the first documented use of Restorative Justice in schools, its advocates have promoted it as an alternative to zero-tolerance and punitive exclusionary discipline. As interviews with administrators, teachers, parents, students, and school resource officers in the Denver Public Schools have revealed, the impact of Restorative practices is not simply an academic idea but a practice for transforming the community. In recent years, diverse models of Restorative Justice have been implemented in schools across the United States to address increasing concerns about the significant negative impact of exclusionary discipline, particularly for African American and Latino students. Research showing that punitive discipline and zero-tolerance policies have resulted in a significant increase in suspensions and expulsions for all students has also documented the alarmingly disproportionate rates at which African American and Latino students experience discipline. Such experiences have far- reaching negative implications, from academic underperformance to increased risk of antisocial behavior and entry into the school-to-prison pipeline. International studies of Restorative Justice practices in schools provide significant evidence of its positive outcomes for students, teachers, parents, and community members. No similar study has been conducted in the United States, until now. This longitudinal study on the impact of Restorative Justice in Denver Public Schools (DPS) is the first conducted in an urban school district in the United States. This multiyear examination of the implementation of school-based Restorative Justice practices across several school sites is based on an unusually rich combination of empirical and qualitative data allowing for comprehensive analysis. The findings presented in this chapter are based on a case study analysis of DPS conducted from 2008 to 2013, and on data collected by DPS from 2006 to 2013. Data are drawn from observations, open-ended interviews, and secondary analyses of empirical discipline data from DPS at both the district and school levels. The findings provide educational policymakers with five key considerations. First, the systemic implementation of Restorative Justice at the school and district levels, coupled with the reform of discipline policies, can play a key role in addressing disproportionality in discipline outcomes. Second, the positive impact of Restorative practices not only addresses disproportionate discipline but also can be correlated with increased academic achievement. Third, the implementation of Restorative practices should be aligned with clear short-, medium-, and long-term goals, beginning with a small pilot phase and transitioning to widespread adoption. Fourth, the implementation of Restorative practices will be different in every district, as it is not simply about adding another program to a teacher’s classroom or disciplinarian’s protocols but about institutionalizing practices that facilitate microinstitutional changes that are responsive to the needs of individuals and communities. Fifth, the most effective approach to implementing Restorative practices is a comprehensive continuum model that can have transformative effects within an individual school community and also be part of districtwide implementation.
-
keeping kids in schools Restorative Justice punitive discipline and the school to prison pipeline
The Journal of Law of Education, 2012Co-Authors: Thalia GonzalezAbstract:Although the use of Restorative Justice in schools is hardly new globally, the emergence of school-based Restorative Justice in the United States as an educational practice to address the far-reaching negative impacts of punitive discipline policies is a more recent phenomenon. School-based Restorative Justice programs in the United States have grown exponentially in the last five years. Within the school context, Restorative Justice is broadly defined as an approach to discipline that engages all parties in a balanced practice that brings together all people impacted by an issue or behavior. It allows students, teachers, families, schools, and communities to resolve conflict, promote academic achievement, and address school safety. Restorative Justice practice in schools is often seen as building on existing relationships and complementary with other non-discipline practices, such as peer mediation or youth courts. This Article examines the implementation, development, and impact of a school-based Restorative Justice program across the United States with a specific case study of North High School in Denver, Colorado. Part II details the impact of punitive discipline policies in schools as a framework for understanding the critical importance for schools to adopt alternative practices in addressing student behavior. Part III presents the practice of Restorative Justice in schools. Specifically, Part ll provides a foundation for understanding the emergence of school-based Restorative Justice, the philosophy of Restorative Justice, and models of Restorative Justice in schools. Part III also discusses preliminary data collected from school-based Restorative programs. Part IV contextualizes the school-based Restorative Justice practice in the Denver Public School District. This article concludes in Part V with reflections on the need for reform of punitive schools' discipline policies as integral to a fight for educational equity.
-
keeping kids in schools Restorative Justice punitive discipline and the school to prison pipeline
The Journal of Law of Education, 2012Co-Authors: Thalia GonzalezAbstract:I. INTRODUCTION Although the use of Restorative Justice in schools is hardly new globally, the emergence of school-based Restorative Justice in the United States as an educational practice to address the far-reaching negative impacts of punitive discipline policies is a more recent phenomenon. School-based Restorative Justice programs in the United States have grown exponentially in the last five years. Within the school context, Restorative Justice is broadly defined as an approach to discipline that engages all parties in a balanced practice that brings together all people impacted by an issue or behavior.1 It allows students, teachers, families, schools, and communities to resolve conflict, promote academic achievement, and address school safety. Restorative Justice practice in schools is often seen as building on existing relationships and complementary with other non-discipline practices, such as peer mediation or youth courts. To understand the powerful impact of school-based Restorative Justice practice, one must consider the far-reaching negative impacts of zero tolerance and other punitive discipline measures.2 It has been consistently documented that punitive school discipline policies not only deprive students of educational opportunities, but fail to make schools safer places.' The presence of zero tolerance and punitive discipline policies within schools also have negative effects on the offending student, by increasing the likelihood of future disciplinary problems, and ultimately increasing contact with the juvenile Justice system.4 For example, in its 2010 report, Test, Punish & Push Out: How "Zero Tolerance" and High Stakes Testing Funnel Youth Into the School-Prison-Pipeline, The Advancement Project documented that punitive discipline policies have led to a tripling of the national prison population from 1987 to 2007. 5 Additionally, in many school districts across the United States, children are more likely to be arrested at school than they were a generation ago,6 and the number of students suspended from school each year has nearly doubled from 1.7 million in 1974 to 3.1 million in 2000.7 In 2006, one in every fourteen students was suspended at least once during the academic year.8 In the same year, according to the Legal Defense Fund, African- American students representing only 17.1 percent of public school students "accounted for 37.4 percent of total suspensions and 37.9 percent of total expulsions nationwide."9 Between the 2002-2003 and 2007-2008 school years, the number of suspensions in New York City schools more than doubled, rising from 31,880 to 72,518, respectively.10 More than one in five (22%) of the students suspended during the 2007-2008 school year in New York City had a superintendent's suspension.11 The first documented use of Restorative Justice in schools began in the early 1990s with initiatives in Australia.'2 Since this time, school based Restorative Justice programs have been studied most extensively internationally,13 but more scholars have begun preliminary analysis of United States based programs.14 School-based Restorative Justice practice is a whole-school approach focused on inclusion in the school community, rather than exclusion, to address issues of student discipline,15 student performance,16 school safety,17 student dropout,18 and the school to prison pipeline19 without a disproportionate reliance on suspensions and expulsions. As Restorative Justice models have evolved within schools, it is clear they contribute to the aims of education by emphasizing accountability, restitution, and restoration of a community. Similar to Restorative Justice programs in general,20 school-based Restorative Justice practices use varying models of conferences, mediations, and circles to repair the relationships between students, teachers, administrators, and the school community.21 Thus, the primary function of Restorative practice is to reintegrate the student into the school community, rather than removing the student and increasing the potential for separation, resentment, and recidivism. …
Barbara Hudson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Restorative Justice and gendered violence diversion or effective Justice
British Journal of Criminology, 2002Co-Authors: Barbara HudsonAbstract:Although the last few years have seen considerable advances in the theoretical clarification of Restorative Justice as well as proliferation of programmes putting the ideas into practice, there are still some important questions that remain unresolved. These revolve around the issues of the range of cases and offenders for which Restorative Justice is appropriate, and the extent to which Restorative Justice needs to incorporate due process safeguards and standards such as proportionality, which are important in formal criminal Justice. After reviewing some of the issues that have arisen in established Restorative Justice usages (juvenile Justice; less serious offences) the article looks at more controversial applications—domestic violence, sexual assault—and examines the arguments for and against their suitability for Restorative Justice processes. It is suggested that arguments against extension to these ‘hard cases’ usually envisage Restorative Justice as diversion, while arguments for its application to these seriously harmful and antisocial wrongs advocate Restorative Justice as effective Justice. The author concludes that questions of range and questions of standards cannot be dealt with in isolation, and that the wider the range of offences and offenders Restorative Justice deals with, the more it may merge with formal criminal Justice. Two sets of issues relevant to the further development of Restorative Justice remain unresolved, although both have been the subject of much writing and argument. These issues revolve around the type of cases for which Restorative Justice processes are appropriate, and the relationship of Restorative Justice to established forms of criminal Justice. They have emerged as key debating points among Restorative Justice advocates, and between Restorative Justice advocates and those who remain opposed or sceptical, and they have come to the fore as earlier questions have been resolved or clarified. Although there is still no single agreed definition of Restorative Justice, 1 its key principles are now well defined and widely known, and the main forms of Restorative Justice—the conferencing model in its New Zealand, South Australia and Canberra variants; the dispute resolution models in the USA; sentencing circles in Canada; citizen panels in the USA and Canada; victim-offender mediation in USA, UK, Germany and Austria; Restorative cautioning in the UK—are familiar. The differences between, for example, the New Zealand and Wagga Wagga (later Canberra) types of conference, or victim-offender mediation projects in the USA and Germany/Austria, are more widely understood, and programmes can readily be assessed on how much of the Restorative
-
Restorative Justice and gendered violence diversion or effective Justice
Social Science Research Network, 2002Co-Authors: Barbara HudsonAbstract:Although the last few years have seen considerable advances in the theoretical clarification of Restorative Justice as well as proliferation of programmes putting the ideas into practice, there are still some important questions that remain unresolved. These revolve around the issues of the range of cases and offenders for which Restorative Justice is appropriate, and the extent to which Restorative Justice needs to incorporate due process safeguards and standards such as proportionality, which are important in formal criminal Justice. After reviewing some of the issues that have arisen in established Restorative Justice usages (juvenile Justice; less serious offences) the article looks at more controversial applications-domestic violence, sexual assault-and examines the arguments for and against their suitability for Restorative Justice processes. It is suggested that arguments against extension to these 'hard cases' usually envisage Restorative Justice as diversion, while arguments for its application to these seriously harmful and antisocial wrongs advocate Restorative Justice as effective Justice. The author concludes that questions of range and questions of standards cannot be dealt with in isolation, and that the wider the range of offences and offenders Restorative Justice deals with, the more it may merge with formal criminal Justice.
John Braithwaite - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Restorative Justice policing and insurgency learning from pakistan
Social Science Research Network, 2013Co-Authors: John Braithwaite, Ali GoharAbstract:It is unwise to give a clear answer to the policy question of the prudence of Restorative Justice under the auspices of police. Restorative Justice inside Pakistan police stations illustrates why only a contextual answer makes sense. On the basis of purely qualitative evidence, it is argued that this Restorative Justice program sustainably reduces revenge violence, makes a contribution to preventing Pakistan from spiraling into civil war and to assisting a police force with low legitimacy to become somewhat more accountable to local civil society. These contributions are limited but could be much more significant with modest donor support. Investment in human rights and gender awareness training can also help control the abuses that have occurred under this program by increasing accountability. The ruthless, murderous, divisive politics of policing and Restorative Justice in Pakistan seems a least likely case for deliberative democracy to work. In limited ways it does.
-
Restorative Justice and de professionalization
The Good Society, 2004Co-Authors: John BraithwaiteAbstract:Restorative Justice is a process where all the stakeholders affected by an inJustice have an opportunity to discuss how they have been affected by the inJustice and to decide what should be done to repair the harm. With crime, Restorative Justice is about the idea that because crime hurts, Justice should heal. It follows that conversations with those who have been hurt and with those who have afflicted the harm must be central to the process. Empirically it happens to be the case that victims of crime are more concerned about emotional than material reparation (Strang, 2003). Lawyers are obviously not well placed to give an account of these emotional harms and how they might be healed. Hence, the practice of Restorative Justice has become a de-professionalizing project. Yet we will see that lawyers still have an important, though decentred, place in a Restorative Justice system. Restorative Justice comes in many forms. The most common in Europe and North America is victim-offender mediation. But the movement, inspired by New Zealand conferring and Canadian circle innovations, has been toward widening the circle to include supporters of the offender, supporters of the victim and sometimes other kinds of stakeholders from the community such as representatives of the school commu
-
setting standards for Restorative Justice
British Journal of Criminology, 2002Co-Authors: John BraithwaiteAbstract:Three types of Restorative Justice standards are articulated: limiting, maximizing, and enabling standards. They are developed as multidimensional criteria for evaluating Restorative Justice programmes. A way of summarizing the long list of standards is that they define ways of securing the republican freedom (dominion) of citizens through repair, transformation, empowerment with others and limiting the exercise of power over others. A defence of the list is also articulated in terms of values that can be found in consensus UN Human Rights agreements and from what we know empirically about what citizens seek from Restorative Justice. Ultimately, such top-down lists motivated by UN instruments or the ruminations of intellectuals are only important for supplying a provisional, revisable agenda for bottom-up deliberation on Restorative Justice standards appropriate to distinctively local anxieties about inJustice. A method is outlined for moving bottom-up from standards citizens settle for evaluating their local programme to aggregating these into national and international standards.
-
Restorative Justice and family violence
2002Co-Authors: Heather Strang, John BraithwaiteAbstract:1. Restorative Justice and family violence John Braitwaite and Heather Strang 2. Restorative values and confronting family violence Kay Pranis 3. Domestic violence and women's safety: feminist challenges to Restorative Justice Julie Stubbs 4. Sexual assault and Restorative Justice Kathleen Daly 5. Children and family violence: Restorative messages from New Zealand Allison Morris 6. Feminist praxi: making family group conferencing work Joan Pennell and Gail Burford 7. Transformative Justice: anti-subordination processes in cases of domestic violence Donna Coker 8. Balance in the response to family violence: challenging Restorative principles Gordon Bazemore and Twila Hugley Earle 9. Lessons from the mediation obsession: ensuring that sentencing 'alternatives' focus on indigenous self-determination Larissa Behrendt 10. Restorative Justice and Aboriginal family violence: opening a space for healing Harry Blagg 11. Using Restorative Justice processes in developing ways of addressing family violence in Aboriginal communities Loretta Kelly 12. Domestic violence and Restorative Justice initiatives: who pays if we get it wrong? Ruth Busch.
-
Restorative Justice responsive regulation
2001Co-Authors: John BraithwaiteAbstract:Braithwaite's argument against punitive Justice systems and for Restorative Justice systems establishes that there are good theoretical and empirical grounds for anticipating that well designed Restorative Justice processes will restore victims, offenders, and communities better than existing criminal Justice practices. Counterintuitively, he also shows that a Restorative Justice system may deter, incapacitate, and rehabilitate more effectively than a punitive system. This is particularly true when the Restorative Justice system is embedded in a responsive regulatory framework that opts for deterrence only after restoration repeatedly fails, and incapacitation only after escalated deterrence fails. Braithwaite's empirical research demonstrates that active deterrence under the dynamic regulatory pyramid that is a hallmark of the Restorative Justice system he supports, is far more effective than the passive deterrence that is notable in the stricter "sentencing grid" of current criminal Justice systems.
Harry Mika - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
fundamental concepts of Restorative Justice
2017Co-Authors: Howard Zehr, Harry MikaAbstract:As Restorative Justice programs continue to be widely adopted, the number of definitions of Restorative Justice has increased significantly. Oddly enough, some of the programs defined as Restorative do not appear to contain some of the essential elements originally associated with Restorative Justice. In an effort to clarify what constitutes Restorative Justice, this article provides a fundamental definition of Restorative Justice. While the definition seeks to be as inclusive as possible, it also provides some basic principles against which programs might be measured to determine their Restorative nature and potential.
-
Restorative Justice and the critique of informalism in northern ireland
British Journal of Criminology, 2002Co-Authors: Kieran Mcevoy, Harry MikaAbstract:This article examines the development of community-based Restorative Justice in the context of the Northern Ireland peace process. In tandem with the political changes introduced as a result of the Good Friday Agreement, and the reforms of policing and the criminal Justice system which occurred as a result of that accord, this article charts the parallel attempts to use community-based Restorative Justice programmes as alternatives to paramilitary punishment violence. In analysing the controversy surrounding such projects, the authors argue that the traditional critiques of informal Justice have been revisited and revitalized in the ongoing political struggles involving Restorative Justice in the jurisdiction. These critiques are: the supposedly sinister nature of community-based Restorative Justice, the idealization of ‘community’ in such projects as essentially consensual and harmonious, the critique of such projects as a technical and evaluative failure and finally the claim that such projects are impossible. The authors argue that the Northern Ireland experience suggests grounds for a rejection of the cynicism of ‘nothing works’ and argue that the transition to peace lays down moral imperatives including the search for Justice practice that ameliorates the violence of the past. A central argument of the early Restorative Justice advocates was that industrialized nations had ‘stolen’ conflicts away from individuals and communities as part of a broader process of state legitimation (Christie 1977; Zehr 1990). Restorative Justice was seen as a contested site between state and community. When the state’s legitimacy has been explicitly challenged through political violence as has occurred in Northern Ireland, and Restorative Justice emerges as an alternative to such violence, such contests become all the more keenly contested. That conflict has seen the opponents of community-based Restorative Justice reinvigorate many of the traditional criticisms that came to dominate the informalism literature from the 1980s onwards. As individuals who have been closely associated with these community-based Restorative schemes, we wish to engage with these criticisms. These are not critiques of Restorative Justice per se (see Morris this volume), for the concept at least of Restorative Justice (however defined) would seem to be met with widespread approval in Northern Ireland (Criminal Justice Review 2000: 203). Indeed there are a number of state-led schemes which have been given strong official approval (O’Mahony et al. 2002). 1 However, the particular edge to the debate here is because the most high-profile projects and those doing the bulk of Restorative Justice casework are community-based and have
-
Restorative Justice and the critique of informalism in northern ireland
Social Science Research Network, 2002Co-Authors: Kieran Mcevoy, Harry MikaAbstract:This article examines the development of community-based Restorative Justice in the context of the Northern Ireland peace process. In tandem with the political changes introduced as a result of the Good Friday Agreement, and the reforms of policing and the criminal Justice system which occurred as a result of that accord, this article charts the parallel attempts to use community-based Restorative Justice programmes as alternatives to paramilitary punishment violence. In analysing the controversy surrounding such projects, the authors argue that the traditional critiques of informal Justice have been revisited and revitalized in the ongoing political struggles involving Restorative Justice in the jurisdiction. These critiques are: the supposedly sinister nature of community-based Restorative Justice, the idealization of 'community' in such projects as essentially consensual and harmonious, the critique of such projects as a technical and evaluative failure and finally the claim that such projects are impossible. The authors argue that the Northern Ireland experience suggests grounds for a rejection of the cynicism of 'nothing works' and argue that the transition to peace lays down moral imperatives including the search for Justice practice that ameliorates the violence of the past.
