Suchergebnisse

Intro -- About the series -- Foreword -- Acknowledgements -- Table of Contents -- Chapter 1 Introduction -- Chapter 2 What is restorative justice? Fresh answers to a vexed question -- Chapter 3 Feminism, justice and ethics: Reflections on Braithwaite's commitments -- Chapter 4 Criminal justice ideologies and practices in different voices: Some feminist questions about justice -- Chapter 5 Sexual assault and restorative justice -- Chapter 6 Feminist engagement with restorative justice -- Chapter 7 Seeking justice in the 21st century: Towards an intersectional politics of justice -- Chapter 8 Restorative justice: The real story -- Chapter 9 The limits of restorative justice -- Chapter 10 Restorative justice for victims of sexual assault -- Chapter 11 Conventional and innovative responses to sexual violence -- Chapter 12 Sexual violence and victims' justice interests -- Chapter 13 Conclusion: Taking stock, building knowledge, challenging justice -- Index.

What constitutes institutional abuse of children? What is redress? What do survivors want? In this book, Kathleen Daly explores major cases of historical institutional abuse of children in Canada and Australia. Drawing from first-hand accounts of survivors, the book documents their memories growing up in institutions and their experiences with redress, to examine whether justice interests -- for participation, voice, validation, vindication, and offender accountability -- are achieved. Redress for institutional abuse includes civil litigation, public inquiries, and redress schemes. Daly analyzes these areas, paying close attention to redress schemes and asks whether, from a victim's perspective, there is an optimal redress process and outcome. With significant attention worldwide towards identifying effective responses to historical institutional abuse, this text provides a timely, lively, and authoritative resource.

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.

A historical sketch of the class-race-gender construct considers its application & impact in the social sciences & criminology as variously expressed & embodied in current research. Existing social-structural relations of class, race, & gender have been targeted by movements for changing the status quo, whose activism has produced increased consciousness. The class-race-gender construct originated with 1960s black feminism, & was popularized by higher education curriculum-integration projects. After highlighting the construct's use in the 1980s feminist writings of June Jordan, Audre Lorde, & Minnie Bruce Pratt, an engaged approach to the interdependent & multiple relations of class, race, & gender is called for. J. Sadler

Feminist legal thought in the 1980s regarding the meanings of gender equality in light of differences between & among men & women are reviewed & analyzed. Limitations of current equality doctrine are discussed. Different positions on how gender differences should be addressed in law are compared with reference to symmetrical & asymmetrical arguments. Why feminist scholars & activists disagree over strategy & legal argument is explained by different: (1) readings of the past; (2) conceptions of gender difference; & (3) sites of inquiry, ie, labor or sexuality. It is concluded that in the past decade feminist legal thought shifted from rights & equal treatment, to debates on difference, to deconstructing terms such as "rights" & "difference"; these analytical shifts raise questions for what role law can or should have for feminist analysis & activism. 82 References. AA

The Wheeler et al. (1982) data set of white‐collar defendants is used to compare men's and women's socioeconomic profiles and occupations and the nature of their illegalities. The results show that a minority of men but only a handful of women fit the image of a highly placed white‐collar offender. Most employed women were clerical workers, and most employed men were managers or administrators. Women were more likely to be nonwhite, less likely to have completed college, and owned less in economic assets. Men were more likely to work in crime groups and to use organizational resources in carrying out crimes, and their attempted economic gains were higher. Occupational marginality, not mobility, better explains the form of women's white‐collar crime. The results raise questions about white‐collar arrest data and the nature of crime and offenders in white‐collar sentencing samples. They compel an investigation of the multiple injuences of gender, class, and race relations in generating varieties of white‐collar crime and in being caught and prosecuted for white‐collar crime.

Many scholars think that women are sentenced more leniently than men because judges are paternalistic toward women. In this article, I suggest that paternalism is a multilayered concept and that it is important to distinguish between judicial concerns for protecting women and those for protecting children and families. To learn what factors judges consider in sentencing and whether these differ for men and women defendants, I interviewed 20 men and 3 women judges in two state criminal courts. I learned that the primary objects of judicial protection were not women, but children, and men's and women's economic support or care for families. However, there was a labor hierarchy in the judges' minds in that they believed that care giving was more important than wage earning for the maintenance of families. Interactive influences among the defendant's gender, familial status, race or ethnicity, and the nature of the offense charged are discussed.