Restorative Justice The purpose of this article was to show that restorative justice is significantly more satisfying as compared to courts for both offenders and victims. This was achieved with a randomized experimental design known as Reintergrative Shaming Experiments RISE. This project is used to compare the effects of standard court processing with those of restorative justice intervention known as conferencing. In the article, the RISE data is used to examine whether conferences are equally beneficial for juvenile victims and adult victims as well (Gal, T & Moyal, 201).

The research method that was used in this article is a stratified randomized experimental design that was used to compare the outcomes of court and conference cases that were held in Canberra, Australia between 1995 and 2000. Shoplifting, drinking, property crimes and violent crimes were assigned within each other randomly to the Restorative Justice Conferences or traditional courts using a computer program. There was the use of a two-factor analysis of covariance ANCOVA for analysis of the data that was found.

The key findings of the article suggest that whereas RJ made adults more satisfied as compared to courts, conference juvenile victims were less satisfied compared to court juvenile victims. The two-factor ANCOVA showed that for all the victims conferences were more satisfying as compared to courts. Furthermore, harm that is more serious is linked to decreased process satisfaction for all victims. A qualitative analysis has been used to identify adult domination and insensitivity when it comes to the special needs of youths as recurring themes (Gal, T & Moyal, 201).

One of the limitations of the study was the fact that there was a small number of young victims that were involved in the RISE study as well as an unbalanced comparison group of the adult victims. Another limitation...

When it comes to the sociology of deviance, labeling theory of defiant behavior is used interchangeably with societal reaction theory of deviancy. These two phrases both point to the fact that sociological explanation of the function of deviance as a product of social control as opposed to being a product of psychology or genetic inheritance. Labeling theorists put emphasis on the point of seeing deviance from a deviant individual's viewpoint. They hold the claim that when an individual becomes known as deviant and has deviant behavior patterns it is as much or more to do with the stigmatization they get then they are said to have committed the deviant act.
Labeling theory comprises of two propositions, the first is that deviant behavior is to be seen as not simply a violation of norms but as any behavior that is successfully labeled as deviant. The deviance does not inhere in the act but how others respond to that particular act this can be understood as deviance being in the eyes of the beholder. The second proposition claims that labeling leads to or amplifies deviance. Deviant's response to a societal reaction is what leads to secondary deviation through which the deviant ends up accepting a self-image as someone that is locked permanently within a deviant role. Labeling theory is very complex and hence making it different as compared to other theories. Instead of examining why some social groups commit more crimes it asks why some people that are committing some actions end up being…