Background: In recent years, restorative justice has emerged as a mechanism to enhance the involvement of victims in criminal proceedings. Its primary objective is to repair the damage caused by the offence, acknowledging it as a genuine injury in need of healing. While criminal proceedings might vary across jurisdictions based on fundamental principles of human rights, the broader aim is to offer a more comprehensive response to crime, aiming not only to punish but also to reform offenders and reduce future criminal behaviour. Methods: This qualitative study employed a descriptive, analytical method, utilising case studies and comparative analysis to explore restorative justice models in established judicial systems and their applicability to unestablished framework countries. By analysing and synchronising secondary materials, the research aimed to provide in-depth insights into successful practices and potential adaptations. Results and conclusions: The results reveal that several restorative justice models have been developed all over the world to align with the legal, socio-political, and cultural contexts of different regions and jurisdictions, such as Canada, New Zealand, and Norway. Despite the variety of restorative justice models, this exploratory study scrutinised four non-adversarial decision-making models: victim-offender mediation, community reparative boards, family group conferencing, and circle sentencing. These four models illustrate an alternative approach to community involvement in crime response, emphasising the diversity and shared themes of community engagement in sanctioning processes. The results offer resourceful guidelines for unestablished judicial systems like Vietnam to choose models best suited to specific needs.
A Sat, study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: