• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Albert_Eglash_and_Biblical_Roots_of_Restorative_Justice
 

Albert_Eglash_and_Biblical_Roots_of_Restorative_Justice

on

  • 756 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
756
Views on SlideShare
755
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

https://twimg0-a.akamaihd.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Apple Keynote

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n

Albert_Eglash_and_Biblical_Roots_of_Restorative_Justice Albert_Eglash_and_Biblical_Roots_of_Restorative_Justice Presentation Transcript

  • Albert Eglash and the Biblical Roots of Restorative Justice: The Theory and Practices in the U.S. and Germany in 1950s Shiro Kashimura (Kobe University, Japan) The International Conference and Workshops of Restorative Justice, Human Rights and Peace Education March 6, 2012 Chang-Jung Christian University Tainan, Taiwan
  • “To the best of our knowledge, thefirst use of the term ‘restorativejustice’ in the context of criminaljustice was by Albert Eglash inseveral 1958 articles in which hesuggested that there are three typesof criminal justice: (1) retributivejustice, based on punishment; (2)distributive justice, based ontherapuetic treatment ... and (3)restorative justice, based onrestitution.”(Van Ness & Strong, 2010: 22) Albert Eglash 1/29
  • The ProblemThe question to be asked in this paper:(1) Why and in what consideration did Eglash come to conceivehis practice and theory?(2) What were the distinctive characters of Eglash’s concepts?;what are similarities and differences between Eglash’s concept andcurrent RJ concepts? and;(3) What was the social/penological background of Eglash’spractice and theory?; what was its distinctively religiousbackground? 2/29
  • The Implication of Eglash’s Theory and Practice to the Contemporary RJ (1)- Historical; The history of RJ in textbooks are incomplete andsometimes contradictory. Some critics claim that they arelargely myth-making by claiming universal existence of RJthoughs and practices in human history. The qusetion in thispaper is; what were the modern origins of RJ practices andtheories? Eglash (1977) is counted as one of the modernoriginators of RJ; but it is also knowh that his ideas were foundin a series of his publications in 1957-59 (some of them werewritten with different co-authors), so it is almost 20 years beforeother major theories (such as Barnett or Christie) that he“discovered” a restorative idea in his practice/theory. 3/29
  • The Implication of Eglash to RJ Theories Today (2)- Theoretical/Practical; The other early thinkers (such asBarnett or Christie) tended to “abolitionism”- wholesomeabandonment of the penal justice system. Today most RJpractices are being done within the system, although the major“spirit” of RJ tends to “changing lenses”(Zehr). Among theearly thinkers only Eglash conceived his RJ as being fit withinthe system: it is also only he that practiced his RJ within thesystem (as a psychologist for rehabilitating offenders). May histhoughts still have something to contribute to the current RJtheory/practice? 4/29
  • The Implication of Eglash to RJ Theories Today (3)- Religious; Whereas the major theories of RJ after 1990s are basedon, or significantly influenced by, a new reading of the Bible (asrepresented by Zehr and others), Eglash also presented his thoughs asoriginated, or at least significantly inspired by, the text of the Bibleas interpreted by Schrey et al 1955. For Asian countries whereChristianity (both as a belief and a group) remains rather weaker oraccomodated by more traditional religios elements, the question ofhow far the RJ concept are related to Christianity is specially worthasking. In addition, Schrey et al 1955 (translated from their Germanbook by one of the coauthors)was translated into Japanese as early as1963. The comparative influence of these comparable translations inJapan and the US is an interesting question worth pursuing in thefuture. 5/29
  • The Idea of “Creative Restitution”In his 1977 article entitled “Beyond Restitution: Creative Restitution,”Eglash formulated that both “retributive” and “distributive” justicesare alternatives to “restorative justice”. He claimed, somewhatrhetorically, that “For thousands of years retributive justice and its technique of punishment for crime; for decades, distributive justice and its technique of therapeutic treatment for crime -- these are the alternatives to restorative justice and its technique of restitution. “ (Eglash 1977: 91) 6/29
  • The Six Characteristics of “Creative Restitution”Eglash claims that his “restitutional approach” is distinguished in 6points from the other two (ibid). The restorative justice: 1 focuses on destructive consequences, its effect on the victim rather than the behavior itself; 2 gives an important role to the victim and their needs rather than ignore them; 3 requires an active, constructive role of the offenders rather than place them in passive role of treatment/ punishment; 7/29
  • The Six Characteristics of “Creative Restitution” (Continued)The restorative justice -4 keeps the offender in the situation where the offenseoccurred but reverses his behavior from ones of taking togiving, rather than remove them from there.5 gives guidance in view of destroying the fixed pattern ofoffensive behavior rather than stop or deter themisbehavior.6 accepts both the psychological determinism as to thecauses of the offense and free will as to the creativeremedial action, rather than decide the offense either asdetermined or free. 8/29
  • The List of Eglash Papers in 1957-19591 (Keve & Eglash 1957) Paul Keve. & Albert Eglash "Payments on a Debt toSociety" N.P.P.A. Newsletter 36: 1-2. (September, 1957).2 (Eglash 1958a) Albert Eglash "Creative Restitution: A Broader Meaning for anOld Term" Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 48(6):619-622. (March-April,1958).3 (Eglash 1958b) Albert Eglash "Youth Anonymous" (1958) Federal Probation22:47-49. (June 1958).4 (Eglash 1958c) Albert Eglash "Offenders Comments on Creative Restitution"The Journal of Social Therapy 4(1 & 2): 32-40 (1958).5 (Eglash 1958d) Albert Eglash "Adults Anonymous: A Mutual Help Program forInmates and Ex-Inmates" (1958) Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and PoliceScience 49(3): 237-239. (September - October, 1958). 9/29
  • The List of Eglash Papers in 1957-19596 (Eglash 1958e) Albert Eglash "Creative Restitution. Some Suggestions forPrison Rehabilitation Programs" American Journal of Correction XX:20-34.(November-December,1958)7 (Eglash 1959) Albert Eglash "Creative Restitution: Its Roots in Psychiatry,Religion and Law" British Journal of Delinquency 10: 114-119 (October, 1959)8 (Eglash & Papanek 1959) Albert Eglash and Ernst Papanek "Creativerestitution: A Correctional Technique and a Theory." (1959) Journal of IndividualPsychology, 15: 226-232, (November, 1959). Before these papers:(Eglash 1957) The Gang and the Masculine Protest: Book Review of The Gang -A Study in Adolescent Behavior -by H.A. Bloch and A. Niederhoffer, Journal ofindividual psychology. -- [Vol. 13 (May 1957) 10/29
  • The Four Characteristics of Eglash’s Theory (1/4)A set of four characteristics are observable in these papers. The ideawas: 1 - based on his discovery that offenders can learn within the process of creative and guided restitution: “As a part of restoring a sense of his self-worth, [the offender] also satisfied another important need, that of restoring a good relationship with the victim of his offense. ... Making it possible for the probationer to earn the request and friendly feeling of the victim of his offense can be ha healthful experience for him.” (Keve & Eglash 1957: 2) 11/29
  • The Four Characteristics of Eglash’s Theory (2/4)2 - The guided/creative restitution achieves its goalcumulatively through five guided act of creative effort: (1) the offender takes an active and effortful role, (2) the effort required is a constructive one, (3) the constructive effort and its consequences are related to the offense and its consequences, rather than arbitrary connected (such as the offense and the punishment), (4) the relationship between damage and effort is reparative, rather than punitive, (5) the reparative effort may go beyond simple repair or tit- for-tat, it may includes a second mile (i.e. voluntariness). 12/29
  • The Four Characteristics of Eglash’s Theory (3/4)3 - The guided/creative restitution achieves its goal collective/mutual help:“Effectiveness means more than simply delinquency prevention, importantas that is. When the boys at Boys Republic rejected DelinquentsAnonymous in favor of Teen-agers Anonymous, they indicated theirawareness of stigma. To be stigmatized is to be set apart as different fromothers. The goal of this program is to enable people whose behavior has setthem apart to rejoin their peers. For these juveniles, participation in theprogram is a beginning and a means ; being a teen-ager in the full sense ofthe work is the hoped-for goal. “ (Eglash 1958b: 48)“The act of creative restitution takes place within the framework of certaininterpersonal relationships in that this technique allows the offender theopportunity for give and take in discussions and mutual helpfulnessbetween himself and his supervisor, his family and friends, his victim, andother offenders.” (Eglash and Papanek 1959: 229) 13/29
  • The Four Characteristics of Eglash’s Theory (4/4)4 - The guided/creative restitution has its roots in psychiatry,religion, and law, but is an reorganization of the traditionalelements in a new order to allow him “walk a second mile” andto restore his sense of self-respect: “In guided or creative restitution, an offender, under appropriate supervision, is helped to find a way to make amends to those he has hurt, making good the damage or harm he has caused,and going a second mile whenever possible, e.g. by going beyond simple repair, by offering restitution despite punishment, or by helping others like himself. This restitution is guided in the sense that the offender is compelled to participate in a restitutional programme and is encouraged to discuss with his family, with correctional authority, with the victim, and with other offenders, an appropriate form of restitution. It is creative in the sense that the offender participates in selecting a constructive act which has socially valuable consequences. Perhaps it is also creative in the sense of being rehabilitative. (Eglash 1959: 117) 14/29
  • The Four Characteristics of Eglash’s Theory (4/4) (Continued)Eglash also wrote: “Creative or guided restitution refers to a rehabilitation technique in which an offender, under appropriate supervision, is helped to find some way to make amends to those he has hurt by his offense, and to “walk a second mile” by helping other offenders. This technique may function by itself or as part of a mutual-help program like Alcoholics Anonymous or its counterparts in penology, Youth Anonymous and Adults Anonymous.” (Eglash 1958e: 20) 15/29
  • Camparing “Creative Restitution” and “(Contemporary) Restorative Justice”Differences: - Creative restitution is ostensively “offender-centered”, whereas contemporary RJ is often characterized as “victim- centered.” - Creative restitution does focus on “victims” in its own way; victim may offer a help the offender to restore his sense of self-respect or social belonging; offender is required to see the harm to the victim as the consequence of his act and to amend the harm done. - Creative restitution also focuses on community in its own way: as the providers of supports/help to the offender. 16/29
  • Comparing “Creative Restitution” and “(Contemporary) Restorative Justice” (Continued)Commonalities: - Creative restitution is alternative to punishment and psychological treatment. - Voluntary and creative action is required through careful guidance. - Group work surrounding the offender is utilized, with special emphasis on offenders-peers in the case of creative restitution, in contrast with emphasizing victims-peers in contemporary RJ. 17/29
  • Discussion I :the Penological Background of Eglash’s Theory and Practice - Movement in favor of the victim’s rights and their needs and restitution was about to begin in 1950s and developed in 1960s (e.g.Schafer). - Technique of group work in rehabilitation was in the development in 1950s (e.g. Sutherland & Cressey). - In Denver, a psychologist experimented a group therapy program following AA model (Cressey, Poremba) 18/29
  • Discussion II :the Religious Background of Eglash’s Theory and PracticeSome evidence of religious input to Eglash’s theory andpractice: - “Walking a second mile” is apparently a quote from the Bible (Matthew5.38-41). - Some Names of rabbis are acknowledged in his articles. - The expression and religious content of “restorative justice” was adopted or adapted from a theological work (Schrey et al 1955). Though the reference was missing in his 1977 article, that work seems to have had a significant contribution to, or at least connection with, his conception of justice as embodied in creative restitution. 19/29
  • Discussion II : the Religious Background of Eglash’s Theory and Practice (Continued)The quoted part of Schrey et al 1955 is about a new conception of justiceas manifested in the Bible and its relation to the secular/legal justice. “The aligning of justice and love is something which it is the peculiar task of Christian believers to promote, and in doing so they need to see beyond the secular conception of justice in its threefold form of distributive, commutative, and retributive justice. Distributive justice can never take us beyond the norm of reparation: commutative justice can provide only due compensation: retributive justice has no means of repairing damage save by punishment and expiation. Justice has also a restorative element. Restorative justice alone can do what law as such can never do: it can heal the fundamental wound from which all mankind suffers and which turns the best human justice constantly into injustice, the wound of sin. Restorative justice, as it is revealed in the Bible, alone has positive power for overcoming sin. (condensed from Schrey et al 1955).” (Eglash 1959: 116) 20/29
  • Discussion II : the Religious Background of Eglash’s Theory and Practice (Continued) New Lega/Theological Movement after WWII:- Schrey et al (1955) was a part of Ecumenical and Protestant efforts inthe movement to revive the Biblical conception of justice after thecorruption of judicial system in Nazi Germany.- The movement was led by Karl Barth (Germany) , Emil Brunner(Switzerland) , Jacques Ellul (France), all of whom Schrey et al (1955)quoted frequently, among others.- A leading German philosopher at the time, Gustav Radbruch (Catholic)expressed hope for their efforts to repair the error of excessive legalpositivism of early 20th century, along with his own (Catholic-rootedconception of “the nature of things”) 21/29
  • Discussion II : the Religious Background of Eglash’s Theory and Practice (Continued)“Trouble is that any ideal, any cause, including that of religion, seekstits particular interest at law by pleading a particular concept ofjustice and there is no agreed arbiter who stands above thecontending parties... But the present emergency in the field of lawcalls for more industrious and better informed help from theologythan has hitherto been available. “(Schrey et al. 1955:28)「困ったことは,いかなる理念,いかなる主義(宗教もその例外でない)も,特定の正義の概念を陳述することによって,法における特定の利益を求め,互いに抗争する諸団体が,政治的,社会的,イデオロギー上の確信を顕示して譲らない中にあって,それらを超越した,一致した調停者がないことである。・・・しかし法の分野における現代の緊急事態は,神学がこれまでなしえたよりも,さらに活動的な,いっそう事情に通じた助力を提供することを要求している。」(Schrey et al 1963: 32) 22/29
  • Discussion III : The Biblical Justice as Restorative Justice1 The Bible depicts justice as God’s personal righteousness revealed inconcrete historicity; and this righteousness is the restoration of therelationship between God and people. “It can be said without exaggeration that the Bible, taken as a whole, has one theme: the history of the revelation of God’s righteousness. .. but they do not fall into a neat pattern from which the orderly mind of an Aristotelian thinker can abstract a formal account of some common attribute. ... and here the ‘righteousness’ is the restoration of the vital relationship between God and men ....” (Schrey et al.: 51)「聖書は全体としてみる時,一つの主題をもっているといっても過言ではない。神の義の啓示の歴史がそれである。・・しかしそれら[=神の義の諸事例]は,アリストテレス派の思想家が,整然とした論理をもって,ある共通の属性について形式的叙述を抽象することができるように,整然と分類することはできない。・・そしてここでは,『義』とは神と人との間の生命的な関係の回復であ[る]・・(Schrey et al 23/291963: 62-63)
  • Discussion III : The Biblical Justice as Restorative Justice (Continued)2 The Bible depicts justice as people’s collective response in therelationship with God.“[I]n that history the people of Israel have a central role ... because onGod’s part [the righteousness] is directed towards life in communityrelationships, and the regulation of these by law is of quite centralimportance. .. ‘Righteousness’, whether on God’s part or on the part ofthe community, was disclosed in any action which served to maintain or torectify the community-relationship in which the several parties stood withone another.” (Schrey et al.: 51-52.)「[義]の歴史において,イスラエルの民は中心的役割を担う。・・神の側からすれば,義は共同体諸関係の生活に向けられており,これらの関係を法によって規整することは全く中心的な重要性をもつものであるからである。・・『義』は神の側であれ,共同体の側であり,数個の当事者がお互いに係わり合う共同体諸関係を維持し・矯正するのに役立ついかなる行動においても顕わされた。」(Schrey et al 1963: 63-64) 24/29
  • Discussion III : The Biblical Justice as Restorative Justice (Continued)3 The Bible depicts the human justice as contractual and effortful (orcreative) act appropriately fulfilling God’s purpose of salvation, ratherthan a mechanical reflection of the doctrine of creation. It sees the justiceas practical and future-looking, rather than fixed state of creation.“The revelation of righteousness, here and in the subsequent covenant-enactments, confers on man his right to live in community, and thiscarries with it some mode of ordering the community so as to leave roomfor God to effect his salvation of men. .. ” (Schrey et al.: 65.)「神の義の啓示は,ここでもまたその後の契約設定においても,人間が共同体の中で生きるべき権利を授け,またそれとともに神の救いの業のための余地を残すような方法で,共同体を秩序づける何らかの様式をもたらす。」(Schrey et al 1963: 81) 25/29
  • Discussion III : The Biblical Justice as Restorative Justice (Continued)4 The question of love and justice is posed as a political question; whatare the proper relationship between the biblical teaching and the secularlaw and political authority? “ It is this brotherly love which is constitutive of true community among men. But there always remains an element of paradox in the notion of a ‘law’ of love or a commandment to love. And it would seem that justice, which is properly enjoined by law, must fall short of anything worthy to be called love, and that in some instances the requirements of justice may conflict with the prompting of love. Where love may forgive, justice calls for a recompense; where love may overlook a fault, justice calls for punishment. ” (Schrey et al.: 181-182.)「この兄弟愛こそ,人々の間における真の共同体の構成要素となるものである。しかし愛の『律法』,あるいは愛せよとの誡命の観念には常に矛盾の要素がある。そして本来的に法によって命令される正義は,愛と呼ばれうるいかなるものにも劣ると思われるであろう。また,ある場合には,正義の要求は愛の命令と矛盾すると思われるであろう。愛が許そうとするとき,正義は賠償を要求する。愛が過失を寛恕しようとするとき,正義は処罰を要求する。」(Schrey et al 1963: 233) 26/29
  • Discussion III : The Biblical Justice as Restorative Justice (Continued)- There seems to be tensions between the biblical teaching of love andsecular justice. In the following quotation, Text in Italics indicates theparts quoted by Eglash. “This aligning of justice and love is something which it is the peculiar task of Christian believers to promote, and in doing so they need to see beyond the secular conception of justice in its threefold form of distributive, commutative and retributive justice. Justice has also a restorative element. It is, perhaps misleading to picture a fourth element which can be added at will to the other three. Walther Schönfeld (Über die Gerechtigkeit, 1952), ... maintains that justice as the world knows it in its public life is three-dimensional ... but that a four-dimensional justice, or perhaps a fourth dimension of justice, is disclosed to the Church, but hidden from the world, in Jesus Christ. The effect of this four-dimensional vision is ... to provide a new total view of man in community; and to uncover possibilities which are simply not there in terms of three-dimensional vision. ...Restorative justice alone can do what law as such can never do: it can heal the fundamental wound from which all mankind suffers and which turns the best human justice constantly into injustice, the wound of sin.” (Schrey et al. 1963: 182-183) 27/29
  • Discussion III : The Biblical Justice as Restorative Justice (Continued)“[I]t is difficult to maintain the thesis that justice and loe reallycoincide, in the circumstances of this sinful world, without falling intoan absurd use of language in extreme cases; e.g.that the waging of a‘just’ war, or the infliction of a just, though severe, punishment, arereally acts of love. These two norms of conduct seem in fact to havefallen apart. ” (Schrey et al.: 182.)「しかし,この罪深い世界の情況の中で,正義と愛とが実際に一致するという命題を維持しようとすれば,極端な場合における言葉の不合理な使用法に陥らざるをえない。たとえば『正しい』戦争の遂行,あるいは厳しくはあるが正しい刑罰を課することが真に愛の行為であるなど。これら二つの行為の規範は,事実上,別々になっているように思われる。」(Schrey et al 1963: 234) 28/29
  • Discussion II : the Religious Background of Eglash’s Theory and Practice (Continued)The quoted part of Schrey et al 1955 is about a new conception of justiceas manifested in the Bible and its relation to the secular/legal justice. “The aligning of justice and love is something which it is the peculiar task of Christian believers to promote, and in doing so they need to see beyond the secular conception of justice in its threefold form of distributive, commutative, and retributive justice. Distributive justice can never take us beyond the norm of reparation: commutative justice can provide only due compensation: retributive justice has no means of repairing damage save by punishment and expiation. Justice has also a restorative element. Restorative justice alone can do what law as such can never do: it can heal the fundamental wound from which all mankind suffers and which turns the best human justice constantly into injustice, the wound of sin. Restorative justice, as it is revealed in the Bible, alone has positive power for overcoming sin. (condensed from Schrey et al 1955).” (Eglash 1959: 116) 29/29
  • Concluding Remarks- Eglash’s theory and practice of RJ were influenced by the penological andpsychological movement in 1950s.- Eglash’s theory and practice have much in common with the post world warChristian legal philosophy and may be influenced by the problematics ofChristianity and the State at the time.- The Christian Jurisprudence in 1950s represents some unsolved tensions incombining the biblical idea of restorative justice and secular idea of legaljustice. I suggest that the tensions and problems are political ones; perhapsthese tensions and problems can only be solved through practice.- The theory/practice by Eglash presents a way of going through the tensionsand problems of modern criminal law practically and creatively. Perhaps, thetension between love and justice can only be solved by prospectivelypracticing of restorative justice itself, including building appropriate theories. 28/28
  • References Barnett,R.1977"Restitution: An New Paradigm of Criminal Justice." Ethics 87: (http://randybarnett.com/restitution.html, accessed on 2012/2/18) Barth, Karl 1963a「義認と法」(井上良雄訳)桑原武夫他(編)『世界思想教養全集・21・現代キリスト教の思想』河出書房新社,159-221. ------------------ 1963b「キリスト者共同体と市民共同体」(蓮見和男訳)桑原武夫他(編)『世界思想教養全集・21・現代キリスト教の思想』河出書房新社, 223-270. Braithwaite, John 1989 Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge University Press. ------------------ 2002 Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation. Oxford University Press. Bridges, James H., John T. Gandy & Jamese D. Jorgensen 1979 "The Case for Creative Restitution inCorrections." Federal Probation 43:28-35. Brunner, Emil 1943 Gerechtigkeit: Eine Lehre von den Grundgesetzen der Gesellschaftsordnung.(=1952(日本語訳)『正義』酒枝 義旗訳,三一書房,=1999(日本語新訳)『正義―社会秩序の基本原理』(寺脇丕信訳)聖学院大学出版会) Cantor,G. (1976) An End to Crime and Punishment, The Single. Christie, Nils 1977 "Conflicts as PropertyA" British Journal Criminology 17:1-15. Cohen, Irving E. 1944 "The Integration of Restitution in the Probation Services," Journal of CriminalLaw and Criminology, 34(5): 315-321. Consedine, Jim & Helen Bowen 2001 『修復的司法―現代的課題と実践』前野 育三, 高橋 貞彦(訳),関西学院大学出版会. 1/6
  • References (Continued) Cressey, D.R. 1954a "Suggested as a Model: Alcoholics Anonymous" Science News Letter June 19,1954. ------------------ 1954b "Contradictory Theories in Correctional Group Tehrapy Programs." FederalProbation 18:20-26. ------------------ 1954c "Changing Criminals: Applications of the Theory of Differential Association,"American Journal of Sociology. 61(2):116-120. Cunneen,Chris & Carolyn Hoyle. 2010 Debating Restorative Justice. Oxford and Portland, OR: HartPublishing. Daly,Kathleen 2002 "Restorative Justice : The Rreal Sstory" Punishment & Society 4: 55-79. Eglash, Albert 1958a "Creative Restitution: A Broader Meaning for an Old Term" Journal of CriminalLaw, Criminology and Police Science 48(6): 619-622. -------------------- 1958b "Youth Anonymous" (1958) Federal Probation 22:47-49. -------------------- 1958c "Offenders Comments on Creative Restitution" The Journal of Social Therapy4(1 & 2): 32-40 (1958). -------------------- 1958d "Adults Anonlymous" (1958) Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology andPolice Science 49(3): 237-239. -------------------- 1958e "Creative Restitution. Some Suggestions for Prison Rehabilitation Programs"American Journal of Correction XX:20-34. -------------------- 1959 "Creative Restitution: Its Roots in Psychiatry, Religion and Law" BritishJournal of Delinquency 10: 114-119. -------------------- 1977 "Beyond Restitution: Creative Restitution. In Hudson & Galaway 1977:91-99. 2/6
  • References (Continued) Eglash, Albert & Ernst Papanek 1959 "Creative restitution: A Correctional Technique and aTheory." (1959) Journal of Individual Psychology, 15: 226-232. Ellul, Jacques 1960 The Theological Foundation of Law. New York: The Seabury Press.(=1946(フランス語原著)) Fry,Margery 1957 "Justice for Victims". The London Observer, July 7, 1957, at 8, col. 2 Reprintedin 8 J. PUB. L. 191-194 (1959). Reprinted in Hudson & Galaway eds. (1975) 3-[2]:54-56. Galaway,Burt & Joe Hudson 1990 eds. Criminal Justice, Restitution, and Reconciliation. NewYork: Criminal Justice Press. Gehm, John R. 1998 "Victim-Offender Mediation Programs: An Exploration of Practice andTheoretical Frameworks." Western Criminology Review 1(1) ([Online]. Available: http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v1n1/gehm.html.Accessed on 2012/2/18). Haley 1989 "Confession, Repentance and Absolution." In Wright & Galaway eds. 1989: 195-211. Harding, John 1989 "Reconciling Mediation With Criminal Justice." In Wright & Galaway eds.1989: 27-43. Hosoi, Yoko(細井洋子),Haruo Nishimura(西村春夫),Shiro Kashimura(樫村志郎)&Tatsuno Bunri(辰野文理) 2006 『修復的司法の総合的研究』風間書房. Hudson, Joe & Burt Galaway eds. 1977 Restitution in Criminal Justice: A Critical Assessment ofSanctions. Lexington Books. Johnson,A.M. & Suzurek,S.A. 1952 "The Genesis of Antisocial Acting Out in Children andAdults," Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 21:323-343 3/6
  • References (Continued) Kaufmann, Arthur 1996 『法・人格・正義』上田健二 他訳,昭和堂. Keve, Paul & Albert Eglash 1957 "Payments on a Debt to Society" N.P.P.A. Newsletter 36: 1-2. MCC U.S. Office of Criminal Justice, 1989 Biblical/Theological Works Contributing to RestorativeJustice: A Bibliographical Essay. (New Perspectives on Crime and Justice Occasional Papers of theMCC Canada Victim Offender Ministries Program and the MCC U.S. Office of Criminal Justice Issue8). (August 1989, MCC(Mennonite Central Committee) Elkhart, IN U.S.A. & Kitchener, ON Canada). Marshall, Christopher D. 2001 Beyond Retribution: A New Testament Vision for Justice, Crime, andPunishment.William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. ------------------- 2005 The Little Book of Biblical Justice: A Fresh Approach to the BiblesTeachings on Justice. Good Books. Mirsky, Laura 2003 "Albert Eglash and Creative Restitution: A Precursor to RestorativePractices." (http://www.iirp.edu/library/eglash.html. Accessed on 2012/2/18) Morioka, Kiyomi (森岡 清美)1976 『日本の近代社会とキリスト教』評論社. Mullins, Mark R. 1998 Christianity Made in Japan: A Study of Indigenous Movements. Universityof Hawaii Press.(=2005『メイド・イン・ジャパンのキリスト教』高崎恵(訳) トランスビュー. Namiki, Koichi(並木 浩一) 1966 「法・権利・正義・義」『キリスト教と文化/日本基督教大学』2:57 - 73. 4/6
  • References (Continued) Osakabe, Yutaka (長下部 穣)n.d.『ハワード・ゼアの修復正義思想』(立教大学大学院修士論文). Plack, Arno 1974 Plädoyer für Abschaffung des Strafrechts. kartonierte Ausg. Preachey, Dean F. 1989 "The Kitchener Expriment." In Wright & Galaway eds. 1989: 14-26. Radbruch, Gustav1955 Rechtsphilosophie 5th edition. =1961『ラートブルフ著作集 第1巻 法哲学』. Reeves, Helen 1989 "The Victim Support Perspective." In Wright & Galaway eds. 1989: 44-55. Reid, David 1991 New wine : the cultural shaping of Japanese Christianity. Berkeley, Calif. : AsianHumanities Press. Richards, Kelly May 2006 "Rewriting History : Towards a Genealogy of RestorativeJustice" (http://handle.uws.edu.au:8081/1959.7/17010. Accessed on 2012/2/18) Schafer, Stephen 1965 "Restitution to Victims of Crime--An Old Correctional Aim Modernized,"Minnesota Law Review, 50 :243-254. -------------------- 1970 "Victim Compensation and Responsibility," Southern California LawReview, 43:55-68. Schrey,Heinz-Horst, Hans Hermann Waltz & W.A.Whitehouse (1955) The Biblical Doctrine ofJustice and Law. London:SCM Press.(=1963(日本語訳)『聖書における法と正義』西田 進・戸村 政博(訳),日本基督教団出版部). Shibata, Mamoru(柴田 守) 2003 「ローラ・ミルスキー『アルバート・イグラッシュと創 造的賠償―修復的な手法の先駆者』」『法律時報』76(11): 83-86. 5/6
  • References (Continued) Sutherland, E.H. & D. R. Cressey 1955 Principles of Criminology, fourth edition. Lippincott. Sylvester, Douglas J. 2003 "Myth in Restorative Justice History" Utah Law Review, pp.1445-1496. Takikawa, Hirohide(瀧川 裕英) 1999 「個人自己責任の原則と集合的責任」 井上達夫, 嶋津格, 松浦好治編『法の臨界・3・法実践への提言』東京大学出版会, 119-139. Thorburn, Malcolm Bruce, “The Impossible Dreams and Modest Reality of Restorative Justice”.Queens Law Journal, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2005; Queens Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-14.Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1024774 Van Ness, Daniel W. & Karen Heetderks Strong, (2006) Restoring Justice: An Introduction toRestorative Justice Fourth Edition 2010. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co. Wright, Martin& Burt Galaway eds. 1989 Mediation and Criminal Justice: Victims, Offenders, andCommunity. Sage Publications. Yoshida, Toshio(吉田 敏雄)(1995 - 2005)「法的平和の 復(1 - 31・完)行為者-被害者-仲介・和解の視座」『法学研究 / 北海学園大学』30:423-447, 31:1-32,217 - 243,417 - 446, 32:33 -57,241 - 266,481 - 530, 33:53 - 83,469 - 512, 34:25 - 75,275 - 305,533 - 562, 35:89 - 127, 315 -339,485 - 510, 36:35 - 62,307 - 345, 37:41 - 78,427 - 454,689 - 710, 38:107 - 128,307 - 334,587 -608,667 - 700, 39:1 - 25,239 - 270, 40:139 - 164,351 - 371,547 - 572,763 - 787, 41:47 - 76. Zehr, Howard 1995/2003 Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice Scottsdale, PA:Herald Press (=2003 『修復的司法とは何か―応報から関係修復へ』西村 春夫, 細井 洋子), 高橋則夫 (訳) 新泉社,) 6/6