Restoration and Retribution: How Including Retributive Components Affects the Acceptability of Restorative Justice Procedures

124 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Psychological Aspects of Retributive Justice (2007, background): “In a scenario experiment (Gromet and Darley, 2006) testing this intuition, participants played the role of a judge assigning criminal cases to various court systems.”
Justice through consensus: Shared identity and the preference for a restorative notion of justice (2010, background): “…recent decades as a new paradigm in criminology and law (e.g. Bazemore, 1998; Braithwaite, 1998), but has attracted only little attention in social psychology so far (e.g. Cohen, 2001; Gromet & Darley, 2006; Morrison & Ahmed, 2006; Okimoto & Wenzel, 2008; Wenzel, Okimoto, Feather, & Platow, 2008).”
Revenge, Retribution, and Values: Social Attitudes and Punitive Sentencing (2008, background): “There is increasing evidence that even when restorative justice options are available, severe crimes will elicit demands for a retributive element to imposed penalties ( Gromet & Darley, 2006; Roberts & Stalans, 1998), and these demands have been linked with the desire for ‘‘just deserts’’ (Carlsmi”
Can At-Risk Youth Be Diverted From Crime? (2016, unknown): “Furthermore, RJ programs may be cheaper to implement than traditional criminal justice processing, as diverting offenders from courts and prison can result in substantial savings (gromet & Darley, 2006; Sherman & Strang, 2007; Umbreit et al., 2004).”