FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W307704672> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W307704672 startingPage "62" @default.
• W307704672 abstract "Restorative Justice and Practices in New Zealand: Towards Restorative Society By Gabrielle Maxwell and James H Liu, (Eds) (2007) In this review, I will first summarise some of the key points in the general literature on restorative justice, then I will recount the chief contributions of the Maxwell and Liu book, and finally I will end with brief discussion of directions. General restorative justice literature Restorative justice has gained significant momentum as justice reform movement within the past three decades, and it is estimated that up to one hundred countries worldwide utilize restorative justice practices (Van Ness, 2002). The popularity of restorative justice programs has been attributed to growing dissatisfaction with the conventional justice system and the assertion that this system consistently fails to take into account the needs of offenders, victims, and their communities (Morris, 2002). From the beginning of its rise to prominence, restorative justice perspectives have been contrasted with the assumptions underpinning the criminal justice system in order to promote it as fundamentally different, yet viable, approach to achieving justice. Defining restorative justice is no easy feat because of the multiple strands comprising this conception of correctional justice. Attempts to settle on particular definition have been contentious and rather than guiding theorists towards agreement, the debate around what actually constitutes restorative justice has served to highlight the existence of contrasting and competing perspectives. While the term itself has the obvious implications that it is form of justice that restores something, it is not clear what is being restored and to whom, and what justice means in this context. Dignan and Cavadino (1996) maintain that, ...the precise form of the paradigm is as yet unclear, whether in theory or practice, and the whole debate is characterized by considerable terminological and conceptual confusion (p. 153). Restorative advocates, however, have argued that the appeal of restorative justice lies in its flexibility to encompass wide range of initiatives and thus, any attempts to reach definitive agreement about 'what it is' will somehow contaminate, and potentially destroy, its essence (Johnstone & Van Ness, 2007). Indeed, Braithwaite (1999) goes as tar as to say, answer to the What is to be restored? question is whatever dimensions of restoration matter to the victims, offenders, and communities affected by the crime. Stakeholder deliberation determines what restoration means in specific (p. 6). Although Braithwaite addresses the meaning of restoration rather than justice in his definition, he does imply that justice in this context is purely procedural rather than substantive. An additional implication of this perspective is that restorative justice is nuanced, contextual approach that eschews universal principles and is more concerned with meeting the needs and interests of stakeholders at particular times and in specific locations. Furthermore, there is the suggestion that victims, offenders, and communities ought to drive the process of seeking restoration and that balance should be sought between these diverse, and possibly conflicting, interests. Restorative justice models are commonly viewed as either process-based, such as that described above by Braithwaite, or outcome-based. Theorists who believe that joint stakeholder deliberation is fundamental to achieving restoration actively promote process-based definitions of restorative justice. One such definition is Marshall's (1999) where restorative justice is a process whereby parties with stake in specific offence collectively resolve how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future (p. 5). In comparison, outcome-based definitions tend to prioritize the role that particular outcomes have in achieving restoration; that is, the specific constellation of benefits and burdens arising from the restorative decision-making process. …" @default.
• W307704672 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W307704672 creator A5016283753 @default.
• W307704672 creator A5063960782 @default.
• W307704672 creator A5091296451 @default.
• W307704672 date "2008-11-01" @default.
• W307704672 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W307704672 title "Restorative Justice and Practices in New Zealand: Towards a Restorative Society" @default.
• W307704672 cites W18883598 @default.
• W307704672 cites W2002788212 @default.
• W307704672 cites W2061050468 @default.
• W307704672 cites W2082804004 @default.
• W307704672 cites W2087152177 @default.
• W307704672 cites W2221997444 @default.
• W307704672 cites W2485904276 @default.
• W307704672 cites W392610020 @default.
• W307704672 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W307704672 type Work @default.
• W307704672 sameAs 307704672 @default.
• W307704672 citedByCount "7" @default.
• W307704672 countsByYear W3077046722012 @default.
• W307704672 countsByYear W3077046722013 @default.
• W307704672 countsByYear W3077046722021 @default.
• W307704672 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W307704672 hasAuthorship W307704672A5016283753 @default.
• W307704672 hasAuthorship W307704672A5063960782 @default.
• W307704672 hasAuthorship W307704672A5091296451 @default.
• W307704672 hasConcept C102587632 @default.
• W307704672 hasConcept C110928126 @default.
• W307704672 hasConcept C139621336 @default.
• W307704672 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W307704672 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W307704672 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W307704672 hasConcept C185052227 @default.
• W307704672 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W307704672 hasConcept C2781330901 @default.
• W307704672 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
• W307704672 hasConceptScore W307704672C102587632 @default.
• W307704672 hasConceptScore W307704672C110928126 @default.
• W307704672 hasConceptScore W307704672C139621336 @default.
• W307704672 hasConceptScore W307704672C144024400 @default.
• W307704672 hasConceptScore W307704672C15744967 @default.
• W307704672 hasConceptScore W307704672C17744445 @default.
• W307704672 hasConceptScore W307704672C185052227 @default.
• W307704672 hasConceptScore W307704672C199539241 @default.
• W307704672 hasConceptScore W307704672C2781330901 @default.
• W307704672 hasConceptScore W307704672C73484699 @default.
• W307704672 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W307704672 hasLocation W3077046721 @default.
• W307704672 hasOpenAccess W307704672 @default.
• W307704672 hasPrimaryLocation W3077046721 @default.
• W307704672 hasRelatedWork W1507757881 @default.
• W307704672 hasRelatedWork W1980965579 @default.
• W307704672 hasRelatedWork W2040592969 @default.
• W307704672 hasRelatedWork W2102684122 @default.
• W307704672 hasRelatedWork W2146181794 @default.
• W307704672 hasRelatedWork W2194899211 @default.
• W307704672 hasRelatedWork W2306279849 @default.
• W307704672 hasRelatedWork W2465257062 @default.
• W307704672 hasRelatedWork W2480335044 @default.
• W307704672 hasRelatedWork W2499594962 @default.
• W307704672 hasRelatedWork W2734225407 @default.
• W307704672 hasRelatedWork W2766216036 @default.
• W307704672 hasRelatedWork W2907801417 @default.
• W307704672 hasRelatedWork W3004010964 @default.
• W307704672 hasRelatedWork W3124384330 @default.
• W307704672 hasRelatedWork W3199810984 @default.
• W307704672 hasRelatedWork W3212996603 @default.
• W307704672 hasRelatedWork W51736642 @default.
• W307704672 hasRelatedWork W2413914325 @default.
• W307704672 hasRelatedWork W892215889 @default.
• W307704672 hasVolume "37" @default.
• W307704672 isParatext "false" @default.
• W307704672 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W307704672 magId "307704672" @default.
• W307704672 workType "article" @default.