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.
Bibliographical noteFunding 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.
© 2020 by The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
ASJC Scopus subject areas