Characterizing multi-door criminal justice: A comparative analysis of three criminal justice mechanisms

Tali Gal; Hadar Dancig-Rosenberg

doi:10.1525/nclr.2020.23.1.139

Characterizing multi-door criminal justice: A comparative analysis of three criminal justice mechanisms

Tali Gal, Hadar Dancig-Rosenberg

School of Criminology

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

This article provides an empirical, comparative analysis of three criminal justice programs that reflect different social and ideological accounts: Community courts, arraignment hearings, and restorative justice. The study draws on empirical findings that have been collected over three years in Israel, through observations and archival documentation of these mechanisms. Using the Criminal Law Taxonomy developed elsewhere by the authors as an analytical tool, the comparison is based on characteristics that relate to the structure, content, stakeholders, and outcomes of these justice mechanisms, emphasizing the plurality we have today in multi-door criminal justice systems. The comparative analysis highlights differences and similarities among various justice mechanisms, and offers policy makers and criminal justice practitioners important insights for referring different cases to various mechanisms.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	139-166
Number of pages	28
Journal	New Criminal Law Review
Volume	23
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2020.23.1.139
State	Published - 1 Dec 2020

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The study was funded by Ashalim-JDC (grant no. 204169). We would like to thank the participants of the Multi-door Criminal Justice Symposium 2019 and the participants of the Association for Israel Studies Conference at UC Berkeley Law 2018 for enriching discussions and helpful suggestions on earlier drafts. Special thanks to Michal Alberstein, John Braithwaite, Malcolm Feeley, Shmuel Melamed, and Galia Schneebaum. We are also grateful to Shefa’a Abu-Jabal, Tamar Ben-Dror, Ilit Meir, Gali Pilovski-Menkes, Rotem Spiegler, Yarin Segev, and Talia Yehuda for outstanding research assistance. Last but not least, we thank Daniella Beinisch and Shlomi Cohen from Ashalim-JDC for supporting the project. Both authors contributed equally to this paper.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 by The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Law

Access to Document

10.1525/nclr.2020.23.1.139

Cite this

@article{889ee98d8f0148e183d39fa3b83bb622,

title = "Characterizing multi-door criminal justice: A comparative analysis of three criminal justice mechanisms",

abstract = "This article provides an empirical, comparative analysis of three criminal justice programs that reflect different social and ideological accounts: Community courts, arraignment hearings, and restorative justice. The study draws on empirical findings that have been collected over three years in Israel, through observations and archival documentation of these mechanisms. Using the Criminal Law Taxonomy developed elsewhere by the authors as an analytical tool, the comparison is based on characteristics that relate to the structure, content, stakeholders, and outcomes of these justice mechanisms, emphasizing the plurality we have today in multi-door criminal justice systems. The comparative analysis highlights differences and similarities among various justice mechanisms, and offers policy makers and criminal justice practitioners important insights for referring different cases to various mechanisms.",

author = "Tali Gal and Hadar Dancig-Rosenberg",

note = "Funding Information: The study was funded by Ashalim-JDC (grant no. 204169). We would like to thank the participants of the Multi-door Criminal Justice Symposium 2019 and the participants of the Association for Israel Studies Conference at UC Berkeley Law 2018 for enriching discussions and helpful suggestions on earlier drafts. Special thanks to Michal Alberstein, John Braithwaite, Malcolm Feeley, Shmuel Melamed, and Galia Schneebaum. We are also grateful to Shefa{\textquoteright}a Abu-Jabal, Tamar Ben-Dror, Ilit Meir, Gali Pilovski-Menkes, Rotem Spiegler, Yarin Segev, and Talia Yehuda for outstanding research assistance. Last but not least, we thank Daniella Beinisch and Shlomi Cohen from Ashalim-JDC for supporting the project. Both authors contributed equally to this paper. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2020 by The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.",

year = "2020",

month = dec,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1525/nclr.2020.23.1.139",

language = "English",

volume = "23",

pages = "139--166",

journal = "New Criminal Law Review",

issn = "1933-4192",

publisher = "University of California Press",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Characterizing multi-door criminal justice

T2 - A comparative analysis of three criminal justice mechanisms

AU - Gal, Tali

AU - Dancig-Rosenberg, Hadar

N1 - Funding Information: The study was funded by Ashalim-JDC (grant no. 204169). We would like to thank the participants of the Multi-door Criminal Justice Symposium 2019 and the participants of the Association for Israel Studies Conference at UC Berkeley Law 2018 for enriching discussions and helpful suggestions on earlier drafts. Special thanks to Michal Alberstein, John Braithwaite, Malcolm Feeley, Shmuel Melamed, and Galia Schneebaum. We are also grateful to Shefa’a Abu-Jabal, Tamar Ben-Dror, Ilit Meir, Gali Pilovski-Menkes, Rotem Spiegler, Yarin Segev, and Talia Yehuda for outstanding research assistance. Last but not least, we thank Daniella Beinisch and Shlomi Cohen from Ashalim-JDC for supporting the project. Both authors contributed equally to this paper. Publisher Copyright: © 2020 by The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.

PY - 2020/12/1

Y1 - 2020/12/1

N2 - This article provides an empirical, comparative analysis of three criminal justice programs that reflect different social and ideological accounts: Community courts, arraignment hearings, and restorative justice. The study draws on empirical findings that have been collected over three years in Israel, through observations and archival documentation of these mechanisms. Using the Criminal Law Taxonomy developed elsewhere by the authors as an analytical tool, the comparison is based on characteristics that relate to the structure, content, stakeholders, and outcomes of these justice mechanisms, emphasizing the plurality we have today in multi-door criminal justice systems. The comparative analysis highlights differences and similarities among various justice mechanisms, and offers policy makers and criminal justice practitioners important insights for referring different cases to various mechanisms.

AB - This article provides an empirical, comparative analysis of three criminal justice programs that reflect different social and ideological accounts: Community courts, arraignment hearings, and restorative justice. The study draws on empirical findings that have been collected over three years in Israel, through observations and archival documentation of these mechanisms. Using the Criminal Law Taxonomy developed elsewhere by the authors as an analytical tool, the comparison is based on characteristics that relate to the structure, content, stakeholders, and outcomes of these justice mechanisms, emphasizing the plurality we have today in multi-door criminal justice systems. The comparative analysis highlights differences and similarities among various justice mechanisms, and offers policy makers and criminal justice practitioners important insights for referring different cases to various mechanisms.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85090750842&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1525/nclr.2020.23.1.139

DO - 10.1525/nclr.2020.23.1.139

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85090750842

SN - 1933-4192

VL - 23

SP - 139

EP - 166

JO - New Criminal Law Review

JF - New Criminal Law Review

IS - 1

ER -

Characterizing multi-door criminal justice: A comparative analysis of three criminal justice mechanisms

Abstract

Bibliographical note

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this