Search

The article discusses citizens' juries and deliberative polls and their role in the U.S. judicial system. The author suggests that the legal jury is needed for more humane criminal justice because it fosters civic responsibility and public awareness. Particular focus is given to the connection established between the governing authorities and the public through planning cells and deliberative forums. The article also describes the traditional legal jury in the United States and how its role has changed over time.

An essay on democracy, citizen participation and American hyperincarceration is presented. It provides an overview on penal populism in the U.S. as well as the implications of hyperincarceration in understanding contemporary democracy and the public's ability to punish fairly and humanely. He discusses the development of dysfunctional relationship between citizen participation and the American penal state out of a more democratic criminal justice system.

Leading contemporary branches of punishment theory stemming from the traditional schools of consequentialism and retributivism support a role for public deliberation to secure core values communicated through punishment and to encourage greater accountability for punishment practices. Drawing on Habermas's democratic theory to develop the ideal of public deliberation, this article explores how punishment policies might be subjected to public rational-critical debate. Two contrasting cases exemplify the importance of the deliberative standards stressed by Habermas. Neglecting standards of rational-critical debate results in mere opinion rather than public opinion, the shortcomings of which are illustrated by three strikes legislation where punishment policy emerged from the public but in an unreflective way. In contrast, recent innovations in the imposition of punishment represented by problem-solving courts, like the drug, domestic violence, mental health and community courts developing in jurisdictions around the United States, show how rational-critical public debate can flourish. Habermas's procedural theory does not advocate particular principles, but shows how civic accountability for punishment reflecting multiple values can gain deeper roots in public culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Restorative justice is a normative theory and a reform movement attempting to bring dialogue and reconciliation among victim, offender, and community to the center of criminal justice practice. The theoretical discourse of restorative justice is the product of critic practitioners, active observers of the mainstream criminal justice system eager to communicate in practical terms with professionals open to reform ideas. The theory of restorative justice draws attention to three main flaws in the criminal justice system. First, the current system is state-oriented and overly procedural. Second, the current system is punishment- and offender-oriented and neglects the more complex non-retributive needs of victims. Third, the current system neglects the need for offenders to be more integrated into their communities because of its formality and proceduralism. Restorative justice takes shape in family group conferences, victim-offender reconciliation programs, circle sentencing, and reparative boards, practices that draw on the experience of many cultures. Restorative justice is increasingly relevant to the practice of criminal justice in the U.S. Moreover, it has gained support from both political liberals and political conservatives.

Restorative justice is a form of informal justice growing rapidly among criminal justice practitioners. It decenters the focus of criminal justice from the offender breaking a law of the state to the harm caused the victim and community. Resolution is said to come from offenders taking responsibility and making amends for the harm done and from communities supporting the victim and providing offenders with opportunities and skills to reintegrate as contributing members. Restorative justice theory largely ignores the role of professionals in the criminal justice process, and yet professionals have played a dominant part in initiating many restorative justice programs. Several theoretical traditions recognize professionals as being important intermediaries between citizens and the state. The theory of democratic professionalism argues that professionals can play crucial roles in increasing and improving democratic participation in public affairs. This article examines two functioning restorative justice programs to flesh out what democratic professionalism might look like in operation—what tasks professionals perform and what citizen involvement means to the professionals. We argue that restorative justice cannot get along without professionals and that democratic professionalism may help restorative justice to avoid some of the problems associated with other approaches to informal justice by increasing true community participation but balancing it with concern for individuals' rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Restorative justice, a normative theory and reform movement emphasizing dialogue and reconciliation between victim, offender, and community, is a widespread, if experimental, part of the practice of criminal justice in the United States. This essay argues that restorative justice draws connections between civic engagement and punishment practices that distinguish it as a normative theory of criminal justice. Advocates of restorative justice expect the growth of non-punitive attitudes and the weakening of support for incarceration to emerge from a public and lay-oriented context of adjudication. The role of lay participation in achieving social change, although prominent in restorative justice critiques of mainstream criminal justice norms and practices, has not been clearly articulated in practical terms. Significant ambiguities remain regarding the degree of lay participation, scope of authority, and the focus of restorative justice forums. The essay argues that an adequate assessment of restorative justice experiments should include an analysis of their impact on public attitudes towards crime and crime control policy and not simply on their impact on the specific victims and offenders involved. The link between less incarceration and restorative justice forums is public willingness to grant them the authority to hear and sanction offenses that would ordinarily receive incarceration. Whether and how they can influence broader public attitudes, then, is a critical test of restorative justice effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Analyzes the theoretical justification for restorative justice in the U.S. Central ideal of restorative communication; Theoretical justification for restorative justice; Issues raised by the restorative approach about traditional features of the criminal justice process.

This white paper is the joint product of nineteen professors of criminal law and procedure who share a common conviction: that the path toward a more just, effective, and reasonable criminal system in the United States is to democratize American criminal justice. In the name of the movement to democratize criminal justice, we herein set forth thirty proposals for democratic criminal justice reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]