000			03348nab a2200253Ia 4500
999			_c2119 _d2119
001			116624
005			20250625151153.0
008			110331s2004 eng
040			_aWSS _dAFV
100			_aStubbs, Julie _92168
245			_aRestorative justice, domestic violence and family violence _cStubbs, Julie
260			_bAustralian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse _c2004
300			_a23 pages; 30 cm.
365			_a00 _b0
500			_aADFVC issues paper, 2004, no. 9
520			_aNote - ADFVC papers have been archived by National Library of Australia. If this link fails, please contact NZFVC or ANROWS to obtain this paper. Hard copy held.This Australian paper presents results from a study to describe and evaluate claims made about restorative justice as applied to criminal offences, with a focus on domestic violence. Based on a review of the extensive international literature, the paper includes specific sections on restorative justice for domestic violence and other cases of gendered harm, and specific initiatives for Aboriginal justice, including some that deal with family violence. The paper also contains a discussion of ongoing concerns about restorative justice. The author finds that the values and principles espoused in the restorative justice literature are unlikely to ensure safe and just outcomes in cases of domestic violence. Many of the claims made about restorative justice are untested, or await evidence. The most promising restorative justice models (associated with Joan Pennell's work) have been based on feminist praxis and depart significantly from common restorative justice practices. However, they are resource intensive and have thus not been sustainable. The author lists a number of preconditions for effective justice. These include a conceptualisation of domestic violence that recognises the political, gendered and social characteristics of the issue and its implications in reflecting and reinforcing women's subordination; denunciation of the offence; integrated responses that promote partnerships between community based and criminal justice agencies and that establish clear lines of accountability and monitoring of outcomes; effective victim-focused screening and a commitment to safety, including safety planning beyond the point of decision-making; practices that inform and support victims and encourage their safe participation; purposes that are not diversionary and outcomes that promote victim and community safety, rehabilitation and deterrence. It is noted that any approach adopted must be adequately resourced in order to be sustainable over time. The author observes that these characteristics are not necessarily found in either criminal justice or restorative justice practices. Rather than engaging in a debate between the two approaches, the author suggests the way forward may be to integrate those elements of both approaches that offer a safe and effective outcome.
650	2	7	_2FVC _aDOMESTIC VIOLENCE _9203
650	2	7	_2FVC _aJUSTICE _9333
650	2	7	_2FVC _aRESTORATIVE JUSTICE _9502
773	0	3	_tADFVC issues paper, 2004, no. 9
830			_aADFVC issues paper _95514
856	4		_uhttp://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/34659/20041101-0000/www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20files/Issues_Paper_9.pdf _yArchived copy
942			_2ddc _cBRIEFING