Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Article 6.1

Martin, M. E. (2006). Restoring justice through community policing: The Northern Ireland case. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17(3), 314-329.

Principles of restorative justice guide new approaches to criminal justice policy and practice worldwide; however, scant attention is paid to policing within this paradigm. This article describes the theoretical, practice, and value dimensions of restorative justice and examines these in relation to community policing ideology and practice. It presents a policy analysis of the bold Northern Ireland police reform experience and explores the central dilemmas and opportunities inherent in transforming police within communities in conflict. In spite of substantial implementation challenges, community policing may restore justice because of the demand for a sustained peace, dynamism generated when police reform is part of larger social reform, and determination elicited from the poignant recognition of prior injustice. Through police reform, there is potential for greater local democratic control and accountability of the state social control mechanism.

Article 6.2

Bader, C. J., Desmond, S. A., Mencken, F. C., & Johnson, B. R. (2010). Divine justice: The relationship between images of God and attitudes toward criminal punishment. Criminal Justice Review, 35(1), 90-106.

Some have argued that moralistic considerations trump other factors in determining attitudes toward criminal punishment. Consequently, recent research has examined how views of God influence sentiments regarding criminal punishment. Using the Baylor Religion Survey (BRS) 2005, we find that (a) angry and judgmental images of God are significant predictors of punitive attitudes regarding criminal punishment and the death penalty and (b) images of God as loving and engaged in the world are not consistently significant predictors of attitudes toward criminal punishment, once measures of God’s perceived anger and judgment are considered.

Article 6.3

Daly, K. (2002). Restorative justice: The real story. Punishment & Society, 4(1), 55-79.

Advocates’ claims about restorative justice contain four myths: (1) restorative justice is the opposite of retributive justice; (2) restorative justice uses indigenous justice practices and was the dominant form of pre-modern justice; (3) restorative justice is a ‘care’ (or feminine) response to crime in comparison to a ‘justice’ (or masculine) response; and (4) restorative justice can be expected to produce major changes in people. Drawing from research on conferencing in Australia and New Zealand, I show that the real story of restorative justice differs greatly from advocates’ mythical true story. Despite what advocates say, there are connections between retribution and restoration (or reparation), restorative justice should not be considered a pre-modern and feminine justice, strong stories of repair and goodwill are uncommon, and the raw material for restorativeness between victims and offenders may be in short supply. Following Engel, myth refers to a true story; its truth deals with ‘origins, with birth, with beginnings, with how something began to be’ (1993: 791–2, emphasis in original). Origin stories, in turn, ‘encode a set of oppositions’ (1993: 822) such that when telling a true story, speakers transcend adversity. By comparing advocates’ true story of restorative justice with the real story, I offer a critical and sympathetic reading of advocates’ efforts to move the idea forward. I end by reflecting on whether the political future of restorative justice is better secured by telling the mythical true story or the real story.

Article 6.4

Piquero, A. R., Cullen, F. T., Unnever, J. D., Piquero, N. L., & Gordon, J. A. (2010). Never too late: Public optimism about juvenile rehabilitation. Punishment & Society, 12(2), 187–207.

Policy decisions with respect to juvenile offenders oscillate between rehabilitation and punishment, and the effectiveness of these two approaches, including which one for which type of offender, has yet to be realized. Less studied is the extent to which the public favors one approach or the other generally, and whether the public believes that there is an age at which it may be too late to help a juvenile offender turn away from a life of crime. In this study, we explore whether optimism about juvenile rehabilitation is a near universal, shared belief, or whether there exist important variations across socio-demographic groups about whether juveniles can be rehabilitated (and if so at what age). Studying this issue is important because public attitudes have the potential to shape policy. In the domain of juvenile justice, the challenge is whether public opinion will breed unfettered punitiveness or, as we anticipate, will serve as an impetus for a richer and more progressive response to juvenile offenders. Using data from a random sample of Pennsylvania residents, our results point not toward a division over the beliefs about ‘saving children,’ but instead demonstrate a consensus—that optimism about juvenile rehabilitation is not something citizens argue over. Implications for public policies regarding juvenile offenders are addressed.