凌乱的受害者和富有同情心的罪犯:道德判断在警察转介恢复性司法中的作用

Q2 Social Sciences
M. Hoekstra
{"title":"凌乱的受害者和富有同情心的罪犯:道德判断在警察转介恢复性司法中的作用","authors":"M. Hoekstra","doi":"10.1080/10282580.2022.2084087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT While restorative justice enjoys increasing popularity in a variety of national contexts, it is not yet a structural part of police work. Implementation is often piecemeal, with only a small minority of cases deemed suitable for a restorative approach. This paper draws on literature on the moral dimensions of street-level bureaucrats’ everyday work to analyse how police officers in the Netherlands decide to (not) refer victims and offenders to restorative interventions. In-depth interviews with police officers who are involved in these interventions show that what they present as pragmatic considerations also involve judgments of the deservingness of victims and offenders. Contrary to the literature on ‘ideal’ victims and offenders of restorative justice, police officers in this study are more likely to offer restorative interventions to ‘messy’ victims – who are seen as partly responsible for the crime due to their behaviour and/or relationship to the offender – and to offenders who are considered pitiable or sympathetic. These judgments partly map unto existing cultural norms and biases, and the resulting selective deployment of restorative interventions may therefore conserve and reproduce inequities in the criminal justice system.","PeriodicalId":10583,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Justice Review","volume":"25 1","pages":"179 - 197"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Messy victims and sympathetic offenders: the role of moral judgments in police referrals to restorative justice\",\"authors\":\"M. Hoekstra\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10282580.2022.2084087\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT While restorative justice enjoys increasing popularity in a variety of national contexts, it is not yet a structural part of police work. Implementation is often piecemeal, with only a small minority of cases deemed suitable for a restorative approach. This paper draws on literature on the moral dimensions of street-level bureaucrats’ everyday work to analyse how police officers in the Netherlands decide to (not) refer victims and offenders to restorative interventions. In-depth interviews with police officers who are involved in these interventions show that what they present as pragmatic considerations also involve judgments of the deservingness of victims and offenders. Contrary to the literature on ‘ideal’ victims and offenders of restorative justice, police officers in this study are more likely to offer restorative interventions to ‘messy’ victims – who are seen as partly responsible for the crime due to their behaviour and/or relationship to the offender – and to offenders who are considered pitiable or sympathetic. These judgments partly map unto existing cultural norms and biases, and the resulting selective deployment of restorative interventions may therefore conserve and reproduce inequities in the criminal justice system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10583,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary Justice Review\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"179 - 197\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary Justice Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2022.2084087\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Justice Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2022.2084087","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然恢复性司法在各种国家背景下越来越受欢迎,但它还不是警察工作的一个结构性部分。实施往往是零敲碎打的,只有一小部分案例被认为适合采用恢复性方法。本文借鉴了关于街头官僚日常工作的道德维度的文献,以分析荷兰的警察如何决定(不)将受害者和罪犯转介给恢复性干预。对参与这些干预的警官的深入访谈表明,他们提出的务实考虑也涉及对受害者和罪犯的罪有应得的判断。与关于恢复性司法的“理想”受害者和罪犯的文献相反,在这项研究中,警察更有可能向“混乱”的受害者提供恢复性干预——由于他们的行为和/或与罪犯的关系,他们被视为对犯罪负有部分责任——以及被认为是可怜或同情的罪犯。这些判决在一定程度上反映了现有的文化规范和偏见,因此,选择性地部署恢复性干预措施可能会保留和再现刑事司法系统中的不公平现象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Messy victims and sympathetic offenders: the role of moral judgments in police referrals to restorative justice
ABSTRACT While restorative justice enjoys increasing popularity in a variety of national contexts, it is not yet a structural part of police work. Implementation is often piecemeal, with only a small minority of cases deemed suitable for a restorative approach. This paper draws on literature on the moral dimensions of street-level bureaucrats’ everyday work to analyse how police officers in the Netherlands decide to (not) refer victims and offenders to restorative interventions. In-depth interviews with police officers who are involved in these interventions show that what they present as pragmatic considerations also involve judgments of the deservingness of victims and offenders. Contrary to the literature on ‘ideal’ victims and offenders of restorative justice, police officers in this study are more likely to offer restorative interventions to ‘messy’ victims – who are seen as partly responsible for the crime due to their behaviour and/or relationship to the offender – and to offenders who are considered pitiable or sympathetic. These judgments partly map unto existing cultural norms and biases, and the resulting selective deployment of restorative interventions may therefore conserve and reproduce inequities in the criminal justice system.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Contemporary Justice Review
Contemporary Justice Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信