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.
Professor John Blad
Dr. David Cornwell
The ‘Traditional Retributive’ and ‘Restorative Justice’ paradigms of criminal justice are NOT irreconcilable
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?
Conceptualisation and definition of RJ?
Identity and status of legitimate stakeholders?
What is the ‘ultimate’ or ‘optimum’ RJ : ‘traditional’ justice relationship?
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.
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?
(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?
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.
Applying proportionality to sentencing.
‘Just deserts’ not ignored.
Bifurcation of custodial regimes.
Bridging the custody: community gap.
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.
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.
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
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
Theme 1 – David J Cornwell
Theme 2 – John R. Blad
Theme 3 – Martin Wright
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.