Source: (2005) Marquette Law Review. 89(2):305-325.
Among skeptics of RJ, one of the standard answers is that we may
sacrifice uniformity in sentencing.10 Broadly speaking, uniformity means
that similarly situated offenders are sentenced similarly, while
differently situated offenders are sentenced appropriately differently.11
Since the 1970’s, uniformity has emerged as a—perhaps the—leading
objective of American sentencing systems.12 Accordingly, RJ advocates
cannot afford to ignore claims that RJ is incompatible with uniformity.13
In this Essay, I aim to examine such claims in a more analytically
rigorous fashion than has previously been attempted. (excerpt)
Your donation helps Prison Fellowship International repair the harm caused by crime by emphasizing accountability, forgiveness, and making amends for prisoners and those affected by their actions. When victims, offenders, and community members meet to decide how to do that, the results are transformational.
Donate Now