This "third wave" of reform includes but goes beyond advocacy, whether inside or outside of the courts, and whether through governmental or private advocates. Its focus is on the full panoply of institutions and devices, personnel and procedures, used to process, and even prevent, disputes in modern society Cappelletti and Garth Although the focus of the Florence Access-to-Justice Project was civil justice, it is possible to identify similar "waves" of developments in the criminal justice context.
Thus, recent decades have witnessed "first wave" changes to make legal representation of accused persons more effective such as legal aid for accused persons ; as well as "second wave" changes which have provided improvements to criminal trials such as requirements of prosecutorial disclosure , a broader range of sentencing options such as formal cautions and conditional sentences , and some recognition of the impact of criminal activity on victims and communities such as victim impact statements Crawford in Young and Wall, eds.
In such a context, recent developments in restorative justice for criminal law matters appear to be "third wave" reforms: efforts to use the "full panoply of institutions, devices, personnel and procedures" and experimentation with a wide range of reforms. Commission of Canada In this way, the early insights of the Florence Access-to-Justice Project are connected to new developments in both criminal and civil justice. This analysis of access to justice initiatives in civil law and criminal law contexts suggests a need to reassess the continuing validity of distinctions between these categories.
To what extent should we theorize criminal law and civil law as two quite separate categories of justice responses - or is it more appropriate to think of them as points on a continuum? This question is critical to any assessment of new developments in civil law and criminal law for settling disputes. One response is that actions should be characterized as "criminal" 1 when they involve socially proscribed wrongdoing, that is, when the conduct is such that the community should take a shared and public view, and claim normativity over its members; and 2 when there is someone who is a wrongdoer, a criminal agent, who can be held responsible, that is, who can be called by the community to answer for that wrong Marshall and Duff Using this approach, there is a crucial distinction in the processes used to respond to criminal, by contrast with civil, wrongs.
In the civil process, the victim is in charge; by contrast,. A "criminal" model puts the community the state in charge. The case is investigated by the police; the charge is brought by [the state]; whether it is brought, and how far it proceeds, is up to the prosecuting authority; it is not for the victim to decide whether any decision it produces is enforced…. On the one hand, the victim receives more support from the community than she might under the civil model: she is not left to bring the case by herself.
But, on the other hand, she loses control of it: it is no longer hers to pursue or not as she sees fit Marshall and Duff Using the concrete example of rape, Marshall and Duff argued that the wrong done to the victim should be regarded, at the same time, as a wrong done to "us" That is, all members of the community share the wrong:.
The wrong does not cease to be "her" wrong: but it is also "our" wrong insofar as we identify ourselves with her. The point is not just that we realise that other members of the group are also vulnerable to such attacks, or that we want to warn other potential assailants that they cannot attack members of the group with impunity…: it is that the attack on this individual victim is itself also an attack on us - on her as a member of the group and on us as fellow members Marshall and Duff For Marshall and Duff, it is not appropriate to assert that the community has "stolen" the victim's case; they disagree with Nils Christie's classic argument that a victim is rendered mute in criminal proceedings, "reduced to the triggerer-off of the whole thing" Christie in von Hirsch and Ashworth, eds.
Crime, Punishment and Justice by Lisa Firth | Waterstones
Yet, to the extent that ideas of restorative justice create opportunities for greater involvement by victims in criminal justice processes, and more substantial connection between victims and offenders, it is important at the outset to understand how these developments tend to blur existing distinctions between criminal and civil law processes.
This conclusion does not mean that there will no longer be distinctions between "private" and "public" harms, but it does reveal the necessity for careful attention to the details of the processes  designed to promote greater access to justice. Moreover, as will be explored more fully later in this paper, the choice of different examples may affect our conclusions about whether justice goals are achieved. For example, it may be relevant that the rape example used by Marshall and Duff in their analysis of criminal justice processes involves a victim who is female. By contrast, in Christie's analysis of societal conflicts, the pronoun used for the victim is generally male: Christie described the victim in terms of how "he [has] suffered, lost materially, or become hurt," and how "above all he has lost participation in his own case" Christie in von Hirsch and Ashworth, eds.
Whether, and to what extent, gender may be relevant in assessments of traditional criminal justice or restorative justice practices  are questions addressed later in this paper. The literature on criminal justice reflects differing perspectives on the goals of criminal justice, perspectives which are important for understanding the context in which current claims for restorative justice are presented.
One significant now classic analysis of criminal procedure in the trial context was enunciated by Herbert Packer in the competing models of "crime control" and "due process" Packer Packer's model sought to identify the spectrum of policy choices in the criminal process: according to Packer, the crime control model favoured efficient, unhindered decision-making to achieve the dominant goal of repressing crime, while the due process model provided greater protection for an individual accused by limiting and constraining official power see also Packer As early as , however, John Griffiths suggested that both of Packer's models represented different forms of the same model, a "battle model" of criminal justice, and Griffiths then went on to formulate a "family model" of criminal justice.
According to Griffiths, the "family model" recognized explicitly that criminal activity means that an individual has violated a community-defined norm, but that the violation should not therefore result in demonizing the individual as a "criminal;" rather, a family model of criminal justice focuses on "what the nature of the process accomplishes as well as with the process' fitness to achieve its object" Griffiths As Kent Roach has argued, Packer's efforts to promote a model of due process was significantly limited when later empirical research demonstrated that "in most cases, the criminal process operates as a crime-control assembly line culminating in the guilty plea" Roach 21, quoting McBarnet.
Moreover, Packer's models presupposed that interests of individuals were always opposed to those of the state; by contrast, Roach suggested that Griffiths' family model "assumed that the state and the accused, like a parent and child, had common interests if only because they continued to live together after punishment Roach Significantly, Roach went on to state that the family model, used most often in juvenile justice, was later discounted because of concerns about both due process and crime control; however, he suggested that it is now "being reconceived through family conferencing, restorative justice, and reintegrative shaming Roach 25, quoting Braithwaite As well, Roach noted that both Packer and Griffiths were writing before the rise in concerns about victims' rights, a development which has had a significant impact on processes now being used in the context of both traditional and restorative justice initiatives.
In this way, some current practices of restorative justice appear to be linked to earlier debates about appropriate models for criminal justice. In addition to differences in theoretical approaches to criminal justice procedures, there are also differing theories of punishment and sentencing.
Von Hirsch and Ashworth have suggested that during the first six decades of the twentieth century, "rehabilitation was supposed to be an important aim of sentencing.
IN ADDITION TO READING ONLINE, THIS TITLE IS AVAILABLE IN THESE FORMATS:
Sometimes, it was said to be the primary aim" von Hirsch in von Hirsch and Ashworth, eds. In addition to rehabilitation, however, deterrence goals were also emphasized in relation to sentencing, with the objectives of both deterring individual offenders from reoffending specific deterrence , and also deterring other citizens who might be tempted to commit crime out of fear of the penalty general deterrence. Goals of rehabilitation and deterrence share the idea that "punishment is warranted by reference to its crime-preventive consequences" von Hirsch in von Hirsch and Ashworth, eds.
By contrast, since the 's, some sentencing theorists have embraced the idea of "just deserts" as the basis for punishment: the idea that "the seriousness of crimes should, on grounds of justice, be the chief determinant of the quantum of punishment" Ashworth in von Hirsch and Ashworth, eds. This approach assumes that it is possible to order the seriousness of crimes, and that it is the crime committed, not the offender's need for rehabilitation or deterrence, which should determine the nature of punishment; that is, there should be proportionality so that "the amount of punishment must reflect the degree of harm committed" Roberts and Cole in Roberts and Cole, eds.
- Deadlift Dynamite: How To Master The King of All Strength Exercises!
- Ten Lessons for Talking About Criminal Justice Issues.
- Pokalong in the Land of Noso?
- ACLU OBJECTIONS TO THE DEATH PENALTY.
In addition, unlike goals of rehabilitation and deterrence, which take account of the future actions or motives of the offender and others , the "just deserts" theory of sentencing focuses on the offender's criminal action in the past. Proponents of the "just deserts" theory of sentencing have argued that it conforms to "everyday conceptions of crime and punishment" and that it is closely linked to liberal political theory with its insistence on limiting state power and its conception of autonomous individuals who exercise choices Ashworth in von Hirsch and Ashworth, eds.
At the same time, however, others have suggested that a theory of "just deserts" sentencing in an otherwise "unjust society" increases punishment for those who are least able to conform to the ideal of autonomous individuals exercising free choices:.
Log in to Wiley Online Library
These very robust notions of free will and choice seem far from the mark when one considers the people who fill our courts. Additional information. Students who enrolled for the first time at the College or changed to this major in September or thereafter must complete the major in the form presented here. Students who enrolled prior to that date may choose the form shown here or the earlier version of the major.
A copy of the earlier version may be obtained in the — Undergraduate Bulletin. Senior—level requirement. Experiential learning opportunities. Students in the Humanities and Justice Major can participate in a variety of experiential learning opportunities over the course of their studies. During the freshman and sophomore year, students are we encouraged students to participate in experiential learning opportunities such as the Pre-Law Boot Camps. In the junior year, students are encouraged to engage in a credit-bearing n internship or practicum experience related to a career area of their choice for school credit.
During the senior year, students participate in an extensive research experience associated with the capstone seminar, culminating in the presentation of original research.
Students in Humanities and Justice have interned with law firms, non-profit organizations related to social justice such as NYC Together, and participated in study abroad programs. Students take seven advanced elective courses in one or more of the humanities disciplines in order to explore how the fundamental assumptions, methods and general subject matter of these disciplines relate to issues of justice.
These courses will be chosen by the student with faculty advisement, from the following list. Permission by the Humanities and Justice Coordinator is required for any course not listed below in Categories A, B, or C to count toward the major. ISP courses should be handled similarly. Logically speaking, funds not spent on punishment could be used to advance other competing values including moral ones held by that same individual, for example, to provide preventative services to people who are at risk of a criminal lifestyle. So how do we manage such conflicts?
In such a case, it would be useful to know which sentencing price points are associated with the greatest preference change.
The change in receptivity to different price points is known as price elasticity. If attention to decision costs influences sentencing decisions, it is unknown whether this influence affects all participants equally. Understanding whether and how individual differences influence decision making within legal settings is important because such differences can illuminate the cognitive mechanisms underlying a given cognitive bias. By this view, it seems to follow that people who excel in executive functions such as delayed gratification, counterfactual reasoning i.
Skip to Main Content - Keyboard Accessible
Further research is needed to understand the extent to which sentencing decisions are affected by executive function abilities. By design, judicial sentencing decisions and the money that funds these decisions are ultimately based on and accountable to the opinions of voters and taxpayers. This study sought to fill a critical gap in the psychology and law literature by identifying subtle drivers of punishment judgments, including some contextual regularities and implicit preferences that are likely to shape public opinion about punishment. In two survey experiments, we tested the hypothesis that recommended punishments will be lower when the direct material costs of incarceration are explicit compared with when they are unspecified i.
Individual differences were also assessed. Evidence that public opinion may be responsive to how sentencing cost—benefit information is framed could stimulate public discourse on best practices for sentencing policies, which currently do not emphasize sentencing costs. Evidence contrary to this hypothesis—that the public is not responsive to cost information—would be equally important because it would suggest that, collectively, our punitive values may be so resolute that we as a society are willing to bear indefinitely large costs to maintain them.
Participants consisted of undergraduate psychology students recruited through Georgia State University Psychology department's online subject pool. All identified as US citizens over the age of Seven were excluded for failing to complete the survey.
The remaining were Participants received course credit for participating in the study. The task presented a hypothetical criminal case summary, followed by a series of questions. See the appendix for study instructions and vignette text. We also calculated a sentencing cost discounting slope, which represents the unit of change in sentence for the different levels of cost.
In this externalized cost scenario, no dollar amount was stated, only that taxpayers would pay zero.
- Citizen Views on Punishment: The Difference between Talking and Deciding!
- Labsent des nouveaux jours (French Edition).
- I AM that I AM...I WILL be that I WILL BE-XI.
- The Hungry Game: A Spoof.