In Scotland, a far more welfare-focused approach to youth justice was being taken through the use of the welfare tribunal system of Children 's Hearings (established in the 1970s and1980s), based upon the principles of communitarianism, participation and diversion to divert young offenders away from the formal court system (Bottoms and Dignan 2004). A three-fold typology ofrestorative practices based upon victim reparation, offender responsibility, and communities-of-carereconciliation is proposed which places the Purist model within a holistic approach and distinguishesfully restorative from partly restorative practices. The cornerstone of the Maximalist model,court-imposed ‘restorative sanctions’, is criticized as a non-restorative practice. The Maximalist model’s assumed roles for community and society as direct stakeholdersis shown to incorporate both retribution and treatment goals. The author defends the ‘diversionist perspective’ and the process definition ofrestorative justice. A Purist model of restorativejustice based on a voluntary cooperative approach is proposed, which is shown to be holistic in responseto stakeholders needs.
An analysis of stakeholders needs is proposed as atheoretical structure to evaluate the restorativeness of different models. Advocates of the Maximalist model have been critical of a voluntary process-baseddefinition and proposed a more expansive definition.
This paper engages the efforts to develop a mid-range theory to complete the vaguely defined paradigmof restorative justice.
0 kommentar(er)
