Restorative Justice on Trial 1992
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-015-8064-9_1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Restorative Justice: Steps on the Way Toward a Good Idea

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

1997
1997
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A final strand has been featured for some time in research on reparation, diversion, and restitution schemes in North America, England, and Europe that include mediated meetings between victims and offenders (see, e.g., Dignan, 1992;Marshall, 1992;Messmer & Otto 1992;Schneider, 1986;Umbreit & Coates, 1993). 7 Several claims are made for the enhanced benefits of alternative (that is, noncourt or noncustody) responses to crime: (1) by diverting offenders from prosecution or from custody, fewer will be subject to the stigmatizing effects of the criminal process (or secondary deviance); (2) when offenders meet the people they victimized, they have a "more powerful reformative experience" (Marshall, 1992, p. 18);and (3) when offenders are given the chance to make up for their offenses by paying money or doing community work, they may "re-establish individual self-esteem" and become "socially integrat[ed]" into their local community (Messmer & Otto, 1992, pp.…”
Section: Theorizing Conferencing and Reoffendingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A final strand has been featured for some time in research on reparation, diversion, and restitution schemes in North America, England, and Europe that include mediated meetings between victims and offenders (see, e.g., Dignan, 1992;Marshall, 1992;Messmer & Otto 1992;Schneider, 1986;Umbreit & Coates, 1993). 7 Several claims are made for the enhanced benefits of alternative (that is, noncourt or noncustody) responses to crime: (1) by diverting offenders from prosecution or from custody, fewer will be subject to the stigmatizing effects of the criminal process (or secondary deviance); (2) when offenders meet the people they victimized, they have a "more powerful reformative experience" (Marshall, 1992, p. 18);and (3) when offenders are given the chance to make up for their offenses by paying money or doing community work, they may "re-establish individual self-esteem" and become "socially integrat[ed]" into their local community (Messmer & Otto, 1992, pp.…”
Section: Theorizing Conferencing and Reoffendingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The aim is not only to provide a better remedy for the victim than imprisonment or a fine would provide but also to help transform the offender into a more law-abiding person in the future. This is often achieved by enlisting the support of members of both the victim's and offender's families and communities to support victim and offender in the restorative process (Cragg, 1992;Galaway & Hudson, 1990;Marshall, 1985;Messmer & Otto, 1992;Van Ness, 1986).…”
Section: Compliance-oriented Regulatory Enforcementmentioning
confidence: 99%