civilizing criminal justice n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Download Presentation

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 16


  • Uploaded on

CIVILIZING CRIMINAL JUSTICE. Professor John Blad & Dr. David Cornwell. CENTRAL PREMISE that:. The ‘Traditional Retributive’ and ‘Restorative Justice’ paradigms of criminal justice are NOT irreconcilable.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'CIVILIZING CRIMINAL JUSTICE' - vernon-santiago

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
civilizing criminal justice


Professor John Blad


Dr. David Cornwell

central premise that


The ‘Traditional Retributive’ and ‘Restorative Justice’ paradigms of criminal justice are NOT irreconcilable

PRIMARY PURPOSE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICETo repair the social harm caused by offending, or to inflict retributive punishment on offenders?
does rj need to clarify its own principal aims
Does RJ need to clarify its own principal aims?

Is it an alternative to ‘traditional justice?

Is it a ‘diversionary’ agenda for CJ reform?

Should it be an integral element of effective sentencing structures?

Is it potentially only an ‘add-on’ element of sentencing processes?

rj fault lines james dignan 2002
RJ ‘Fault-Lines’James Dignan (2002)

Conceptualisation and definition of RJ?

Identity and status of legitimate stakeholders?

What is the ‘ultimate’ or ‘optimum’ RJ : ‘traditional’ justice relationship?

fault line 1

The need to clarify whether restorative justice is a process for doing justice differently, or more a means of ‘managing’ criminal justice outcomes. RJ proponents appear to its critics to fall on either side of this fault-line.

fault line 2

Does crime itself need re-defining to provide a more obvious distinction between criminal offences and other acts or misdemeanours that might better be dealt with as civil wrongs?

Do all acts presently defined as ‘criminal’ necessarily require State intervention?

fault line3

(Described by Dignan as ‘Realpolitikal’ issues):

Should RJ be viewed as a ‘stand alone’ or replacement agenda for CJ reform, or

As an alternative strategy for crime reduction where and when it can be implemented as a preferable option for dealing with offences?

ccj overview the themes

Means towards the reduction of excessive custodial penal populations;

Revision of CJ codes and court practices;

Expansion of community sanctions and wider involvement of communities in RJ practices.

theme 1 reducing use of custody
Theme 1 – Reducing Use of Custody

Applying proportionality to sentencing.

‘Just deserts’ not ignored.

Limiting indeterminacy.

Bifurcation of custodial regimes.

Bridging the custody: community gap.

theme 2 revision of cj codes and court practices
Theme 2 – Revision of CJ Codes and Court Practices

Criminal offences v. ‘civil wrongs’.

Reducing resort to criminal court trials.

Increasing powers and discretion of prosecutors.

Presumption in favour of RJ resolutions wherever practicable’

Decreased use of custodial remand.

theme 3 expanding community sanctions and restorative practices
Theme 3 – Expanding Community Sanctions and Restorative Practices

Expansion of community sanctions.

Issues of ‘penal bite’ and credibility.

Enhanced victim recognition and involvement.

Reducing recidivism and increasing ‘life skills’.

Wider application of restorative and reparative practices involving citizen participation.

contributing authors
Contributing Authors

Judge FWM (Fred) McElrea – New Zealand

Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC – UK

Tapio Lappi-Seppälä – Finland

Susan Easton and Christine Piper – UK

Paul de Hert and Serge Gutwirth – Belgium

Borbala Fellegi – Hungary

Jacques Faget – France

Thomas Trenczek - Germany

contributing authors continued
Contributing Authors - continued

Bas van Stokkom – The Netherlands

Lode Walgrave – Belgium

Ann Skelton – Republic of South Africa

Claire Spivakovsky – Australia

Frederico Reggio – Italy

Russ Immarigeon – USA

Per Andersen - Norway

and the editors
And the Editors

Theme 1 – David J Cornwell

Theme 2 – John R. Blad

Theme 3 – Martin Wright

thank you for listening to our presentation
Thank you for listening to our presentation!

We shall now very much welcome any questions you may wish to ask, or observations that you may like to make on the project we have described, and the concept upon which it has been designed.