Contents

[close]

JCL 71 (2007) 427

But what does it mean? Seeking definitional clarity in restorative justice
Katherine Doolin

This article examines, considers the effects of, and proposes resolutions to a number of significant tensions arising from the way the fundamental concepts of restorative justice are defined and used. The article uses as a framework two key issues. First, whether restorative justice should be defined primarily in terms of the process to be used or the outcomes to be achieved. Secondly, attention will be drawn to the lack of clarity in defining restoration. This article proposes a list of irreducible core values of restorative justice and contends that agreement about these will best advance the theoretical debate, assist the appraisal of restorative justice in practice and prioritise the restoration of victims and the fair treatment of offenders.

[close]

[close]

JCL 71 (2007) 441

Theorising asset forfeiture in Ireland
Liz Campbell

Various alterations to the Irish legal system have been effected in a bid to counter organised crime, the most radical of which was the introduction of civil forfeiture in 1996. This article examines the forfeiture process carried out by the Criminal Assets Bureau and seeks to analyse it from a theoretical perspective. Civil forfeiture may be regarded as embodying a move away from due process towards crime control, given the avoidance of traditional protections in the criminal process by its location in the civil realm. Moreover, the process may be characterised as an ‘apersonal means of tackling crime’, in which emphasis is laid on the non-moral and regulatory aspects of the law. This article further contends that civil forfeiture represents an adaptation to reality in which the State reconfigures the legislative framework so as to facilitate more readily the suppression of organised crime.

[close]

[close]

JCL 71 (2007) 461

Informed consent and the transmission of sexual disease: Dadson revivified
Simon Cooper and Alan Reed

This article examines the impact of the decisions in R v Dica (2004) and R v Konzani (2005) on the extent of the defence of consent. As well as analysing the impact of the decisions on the extent of the defence where a defendant faces criminal liability for the transmission of sexual disease, it also considers and examines the wider issue of whether the presence or absence of consent forms part of the actus reus of the relevant assault offence or whether it is a separate and independent element that stands outside of the conduct component of the offence. It is argued that recent developments have given insufficient consideration to accepted doctrine and revived much criticised principles by focusing on unknown circumstances of justification rather than the defendant’s state of knowledge and mind.

[close]

[close]

Links to other issues

Volume 65 (2001) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 66 (2002) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 67 (2003) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 68 (2004) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 69 (2005) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 70 (2006) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 71 (2007) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 72 (2008) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 73 (2009) :   1   2   3   4   6

Volume 74 (2010) :   1   2   3   4

[close]