Kõnelusi taastavast õigusest ja taastava õiguse praktikatest on ka Eestis juba mitmeid aastaid ikka valjemalt kuulda ning ühiskonna turvalisuse aspektist on ilmselt positiivne, et otsitakse võimalusi turvalisusküsimustega tegelemiseks. Sestap siinviidatud vabalevis olev tekst oma koha leidiski. Lisaks turvalisushuvilistele võiks tekst huvi pakkuda näiteks tudengitele ülevaadete kirjutamisel ja uurimustöö disainimisel.

Sissejuhatuseks taastavast õigusest üldiselt:

“As an approach to dealing with crime, restorative justice seeks to bring those that have created harm together with those that have been harmed (Braithwaite 1989; Hand et al. 2012; Rossner 2017). In contrast to retributive and punitive approaches to justice, which centre on state responses to crime and harm, restorative justice places the ‘ownership’ of conflict with those that have the greatest stake in the event (Dzur and Olson 2004).” (Hobson et al., 2022, p. 1)

Taastava õiguse praktikatest:

“As Wachtel (2016) points out, the variety of applications of restorative work means that the tools and applications of the principles vary. Wachtel (2016) uses a continuum of informal to formal processes, which offers useful insight into the different structures.” (Hobson et al., 2022, p. 2)

Taastav õigus politseipraktikates:

“The operationalisation of restorative justice into the policing of youth violence has, however, been patchy. A number of studies in England and Wales have identified that the delivery of restorative justice by police remains inconsistent. Banwell-Moore (2022, p. 7) argues that much of this is due to a ‘lack of systematic guidance . . . [that continues to] underpin the work culture of criminal justice organisations . . . and impact[s] on [the delivery] of restorative justice’.” (Hobson et al., 2022, p. 3)

Andmeallikad:

“This paper presents the key findings from a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) commissioned by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), the UKs largest police force with over 30,000 officers serving eight million people in and around London.” (Hobson et al., 2022, p. 4)

Uurimisstrateegia SPIDER:

“Known as the SPIDER strategy, criteria are underpinned by five reviewing components: (S)—sample (the papers selected should be related to the group of interest; (PI)—phenomena of interest (understanding the ‘how and why’ of behaviours being reported on); (D)—design (the theoretical research framework used); (E)—evaluation (the outcomes or findings of papers/reports); and (R)—research type (whether the study used a qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods approach) (Cooke et al. 2012).” (Hobson et al., 2022, p. 4)

Mõned kandvad põhimõtted:

“This review identifies clearly that restorative practice facilitates the promotion of peer leadership, accountability, ownership, agency and civic engagement.” (Hobson et al., 2022, p. 12)

Mõned väljakutsed:

“These challenges include professional scepticism and resistance, implementation and capacity, inclusion of participants, training, and addressing structural socio-economic underlying factors […] One of the major challenges identified is that the ‘promise’ of restorative justice ‘to give victims a voice is often unfulfilled’ (Gal 2021, p. 144). Too few victims (especially when the victim is themselves a child) engage directly with youth offender restorative justice interventions (see Criminal Justice Joint Inspection 2012; Gal 2021).” (Hobson et al., 2022, p. 14)

Hobson, J., Twyman-Ghoshal, A., Banwell-Moore, R., & Ash, D. P. (2022). Restorative Justice, Youth Violence, and Policing: A Review of the Evidence. Laws, 11(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws11040062