An analysis of restorative justice and intimate partner violence policy and practice : (Record no. 6533)
[ view plain ]
000 -LEADER | |
---|---|
fixed length control field | 03865nam a22002777a 4500 |
005 - DATE AND TIME OF LATEST TRANSACTION | |
control field | 20250625151522.0 |
008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION | |
fixed length control field | 200218s2016 -nz|| |||| 00| 0 eng d |
040 ## - CATALOGING SOURCE | |
Original cataloging agency | AFVC |
100 ## - MAIN ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME | |
Personal name | Garber, Melissa L. |
9 (RLIN) | 8863 |
245 ## - TITLE STATEMENT | |
Title | An analysis of restorative justice and intimate partner violence policy and practice : |
Remainder of title | professionals' perspectives and perceptions |
Statement of responsibility, etc | Melissa L. Garber |
246 ## - VARYING FORM OF TITLE | |
Title proper/short title | A thesis Submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy |
260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC. (IMPRINT) | |
Date of publication, distribution, etc | 2016 |
300 ## - PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION | |
Extent | electronic document (223 pages) ; PDF file |
500 ## - GENERAL NOTE | |
General note | PhD thesis (Victoria University of Wellington) |
520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC. | |
Summary, etc | This qualitative research project endeavoured to open up the conversation around RJ and IPV and highlight gaps in policy in order to give voice to an area in the RJ process that has, up to this point, been virtually silent. There were two overarching aims. The first was to identify the underlying practice assumptions and values evident in the New Zealand Ministry of Justice (MOJ) restorative justice (RJ) standards for family violence (FV) cases (MOJ, 2013). These would be viewed from the perspective of working with intimate partner violence (IPV) cases in particular. The intention was to compare these assumptions and values with RJ and IPV international theory and New Zealand practice. The second aim was to clarify the processes and criteria used to determine/assess IPV offender suitability and readiness for RJ, ascertain the ways in which these practices were theoretically justified, and to compare the implementation of practice to the explicit and implicit guidelines present in New Zealand policy. To these ends, a collection of 30 criminal justice professionals (judges, lawyers, police officers) and restorative justice facilitators involved in the referral and assessment process of IPV offenders participated in interviews in person, over the phone, or via Skype, which were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and then subject to analysis in order to create a conceptual framework. The analysis identified 18 main themes that were grouped into four main categories: RJ IPV conceptualization, effective RJ IPV assessor qualities, IPV offender assessment for RJ suitability/readiness, and RJ IPV practice issues. These results were compared with policy and with the international literature in order to identify consistencies and inconsistencies and to discover where gaps in policy may become clarified. Results showed that a great deal of the policy was supported by the international literature, however there were several gaps and inconsistencies. Several issues were of interest – namely the lack of clarity in the framework of RJ for IPV (i.e. where does it sit in relation to the traditional criminal justice system, intervention vs. pathway vs. overarching framework), the timing of RJ assessment in terms of treatment and interventions, siloing of agencies, and funding/resourcing issues. A final question that arose for me during analysis was regarding the purpose and value of assessment in these cases. Rather than making a decision regarding suitability in order to exclude an IPV case from the RJ process, if the process was truly restorative, perhaps the outcome of an assessment of IPV offender/case suitability should, instead, be to determine what resources are necessary in order to support any IPV case through the RJ process. (Author's abstract) Record #6533 |
650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM | |
Topical term or geographic name as entry element | DOMESTIC VIOLENCE |
9 (RLIN) | 203 |
650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM | |
Topical term or geographic name as entry element | FAMILY VIOLENCE |
9 (RLIN) | 252 |
650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM | |
Topical term or geographic name as entry element | INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE |
9 (RLIN) | 431 |
650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM | |
Topical term or geographic name as entry element | PERPETRATORS |
9 (RLIN) | 2644 |
650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM | |
Topical term or geographic name as entry element | RESTORATIVE JUSTICE |
9 (RLIN) | 502 |
650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM | |
Topical term or geographic name as entry element | THESES |
9 (RLIN) | 606 |
650 #4 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM | |
Topical term or geographic name as entry element | VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE |
9 (RLIN) | 624 |
651 #4 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--GEOGRAPHIC NAME | |
Geographic name | NEW ZEALAND |
9 (RLIN) | 2588 |
856 ## - ELECTRONIC LOCATION AND ACCESS | |
Uniform Resource Identifier | <a href="http://hdl.handle.net/10063/5143">http://hdl.handle.net/10063/5143</a> |
942 ## - ADDED ENTRY ELEMENTS (KOHA) | |
Source of classification or shelving scheme | Dewey Decimal Classification |
Koha item type | Thesis / dissertation |
Withdrawn status | Lost status | Source of classification or shelving scheme | Damaged status | Not for loan | Home library | Current library | Date acquired | Total Checkouts | Full call number | Barcode | Date last seen | Price effective from | Koha item type |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dewey Decimal Classification | Vine library | Vine library | 18/02/2020 | Online | FV20020011 | 18/02/2020 | 18/02/2020 | Access online |