4.1 Review

Restorative Justice Practices in Forensic Mental Health Settings - A Scoping Review

期刊

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14999013.2022.2105992

关键词

Restorative justice; forensic; mental health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review examines the application of restorative justice in forensic mental health settings and finds that it is currently being used by a small number of individuals and is not widely accepted. The evidence for its use is limited but suggests potential positive impacts in this context. Unique considerations and differences from other populations are discussed.
Restorative justice has long been considered an important alternative lens to approach illegal and harmful behavior compared to traditional criminal justice approaches. Despite this widespread and successful application, efforts to use this approach within forensic mental health settings have seemingly been minimal. This review aimed to synthesize the available information on the application, evidence for use, and barriers or unique considerations for restorative justice practices within forensic mental health settings. The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews checklist guided our reporting of the results. After conducting an extensive review of the literature, six peer-reviewed articles and five gray literature documents were included. Our results demonstrate that restorative justice approaches in forensic mental health settings are being used by a small number of committed individuals and are not broadly accepted or part of typical care services. The evidence for use of this approach is extremely sparse but do suggest that these interventions could be appropriate in forensic mental health settings as reports for positive impacts are available on three levels, with patients, victims, and organizations. Information about the unique considerations that should be made and how restorative justice in forensic mental health differs from use in other populations is discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据