User:Sanguinestate/sandbox

Here I go
Wow, I go writing in my first sandbox.

"Deliberative Opinion Poll"
Under "Process" heading, a long paragraph has been copied and pasted. This should probably be written in author's own words. Under "Effectiveness" heading, long quote from Fishkin has been copied and pasted. I'm also not sure whether this is necessary. Choppy writing with run-on sentences under "Disadvantages" heading. "Disadvantages" and "Criticisms" sections seem to overlap.

I edited the article. I added a few sentences in the second paragraph within the "Process" section, listing Fishkin's five criteria for deliberation.

Week 6 - Potential articles to Improve
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing could add to "Modern Methods" section and "Examples" section.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_opinion_poll could edit "Disadvantages" section. I believe a fleshing out of Fishkin's criteria deliberation would be important as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy I have scoured the talk section as well as the paragraph of the actual article entitled Electronic direct democracy, and noticed that no one has added or suggested the edition of a mention of crowdsourcing (as exemplified in Finland on off-road legislation, for ex.) as an important tool for establishing an electronic direct democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_justice I think I will end up improving/rewriting the "Participatory Justice" article for two reasons. First of all, the topic of this article aligns with my academic interests- criminal justice reform and democratic participation- most. The second reason is that the article is still very much in the works, being listed as "low-quality." I believe that the article should be organized in the following sections AS OPPOSED TO "Advantages" and "Disadvantaged:" "theoretical origins," "modern examples," "common criticisms."

Blog
during the evaluation of an article AND addition to an article practice : I have realized after taking the plagiarism module, how rearranging words and phrases can still be considered plagiarism, unless the writing is in your own words. I made an edit on a tree article on wikipedia, where I found that many of the statements in the article were essentially the same as those from the original sources. On top of that, they were not properly cited. I didn’t realize that, even if a statement is attributed to an author, you can still be plagiarizing unless you use a direct quote or rewrite the statement WITHOUT relying on any of the same words or phrasings the author uses. I was aware of this, even when I added a sentence on Fishkin’s five criteria for deliberation, in my evaluation of the wiki article entitled “Deliberative Opinion Poll.” A question I have: If you are separating criteria into five categories like Fishkin does, does this make your writing plagiarism (as long as each criteria is written in your own words?). My guess is no, but I’m just curious.

during writing of first paragraph of my article : I have had trouble accessing a lot of the sources I need in order to write the first paragraph of my article. VPN software needs to be downloaded in order to have off campus access to Yale’s wifi, but the software won’t download on my computer properly. I am realizing that, unless you have access to full articles through various institutions of higher education, it is difficult to conduct enough research necessary to write a wiki article. Of course, this means that college-educated people will be less likely to have the tools they need to contribute to the world’s free, online encyclopedia. I wonder what we can do to make more articles accessible.

I am going to hold off making my rewrites until I get back on campus.

during peer review : I enjoyed looking at the original article, seeing how I would have rewritten it, and then looking at what decisions my peer made to edit it. It is however hard for me to know which sources (were they the same ones or different ones) he used to edit the first paragraph of the wiki article on “decentralization,” since he doesn’t cite in his thoughts in his sandbox.

During writing draft of my article : I find the citation format very difficult to use. Furthermore, I often fall in the trap of relying on one or two sources too much since those sources have the most comprehensive information on the topic. Also, a lot of the articles I found are just about specific examples of participatory justice. I found a lot fewer articles on the theoretical underpinnings of the concept itself. I find writing in the source format much easier than writing with the original wiki code.

During Response to Peer Review : I am not exactly sure what the response should entail, other than describing the improvements I have made upon their suggestions. I am glad that prof. L checked over my article twice as I was making progress on it, but realize that I had not published my more polished draft at the time that she had commented on it. I was having issues with citation formatting using the other format (wiki code one- and I didn't know about source mode yet) so I was writing in a separate word document.

During Finalization of my article : I have been able to find more articles on the more theoretical underpinnings and origins of participatory justice. Interestingly enough, participatory justice has been in practice for centuries, but just hasn't been referred to as "participatory justice" until recently. I decided to include a few old examples of participatory justice in Athens and Canada without going into too much detail, since I am mainly focusing on contemporary examples. I particularly enjoyed reading Claire Sherman Thomas' writing on the legal and ethical reasons why participatory justice matters. Most other authors I cite from explain that participatory justice is important because it makes the judicial process more transparent and inclusive, but leave it at that. Thomas, however, goes one step further by explaining WHY transparency matters. In effect, his argument is that transparency leads to more public consensus, less legal cynicism which leads to the government being less compelled to threaten citizens with prosecution in order to maintain order. So his argument directly links (citizens') legal cynicism and a government's loss of legitimacy to punitive/retributive justice, which I think is brilliant and extremely original (and might be able to explain the positive feedback cycle of corruption, brutality, and legal cynicism in other countries, like El Salvador).

I have also checked my citations. Now that I am using the source format, I find it MUCH less of a headache to cite (thanks, Mgt10196, for reminding me about this format's existence!). Reviewing citations, there are a couple questions I have, that I haven't been able to answer. 1. When I am citing an article by a specific author featured in a book that has short works by multiple authors, do I manually cite using the journal article format or the book format? 2. If there is a website article title, a website name, and a website subheading (as in the name of the sub-site/ not the home page), which do I use as the website title and which as the publisher?

I added information about crowdjury, which is a super interesting proposed system that combines crowdsourcing with participatory justice! (I did not realize how statistics savvy the Athenians were with their randomization device for selecting large citizen juries). I also added info about the Canadian justice system from Giudice and Rosenbaum and found a fascinating article by Gene Stephens- this time on community policing as a type of participatory justice model similar to mediation.

Finally, I included a citation from Claire Sherman Thomas, my favorite author on the subject at this point, and a lawyer himself. I have only included one other direct quotation so hopefully this doesn't add too much. I am still wondering, though: how do you determine when a quote is worth copying verbatim? Does the person with the quote have to be generally well known? How specific must the quote be.

Peer Review
Peer Review of Mgt10196:

I reviewed my peer's edits of the "Decentralization" article on wikipedia. My peer's username is "Mgt10196." So far, M has rewritten the first paragraph of the article. I agree with his choice to edit out the second and third sentences of the paragraph, which state that there is no single, agreed-upon definition of decentralization because of the many applications of the word. The fourth sentence, which M kept, describes how the concept has been applied to discussions of various subjects. It is obvious from the fourth sentence that there is no single definition or application of the concept, so the second and third sentences in this paragraph are redundant. M rewrote the first sentence of the paragraph. His first sentence, for the most part, completely restates the first sentence of the article in his own words. However, M changes only changes "a central location or authority" to "a central, authoritative location or group." I would suggest he use different words, so he avoids the risk of plagiarism. M is doing a good job. I look forward to reading more of his words.

Peer Review by Mgt10196 and Prof. Landemore of my article:


 * By Prof. Landemore: Hello Yasmine, good job on your article. I think the proposal for new sections makes sense. I would beef up the definitional paragraph of participatory justice a bit more. Who coined the term, where, when, and why? What kind of problems with traditional justices is it meant to remedy besides inefficiencies? Finally, I would encourage you to check out this "Crowdjury" model I think I told you about: https://medium.com/the-crowdjury/the-crowdjury-a-crowdsourced-court-system-for-the-collaboration-era-66da002750d8
 * By Mgt10196: Furthermore, there's an opportunity for you to link to another Wikipedia article in the introductory section of the article, when it discusses participatory justice in television programs. I think the original contributor was referring to the NBC Dateline special, "To Catch a Predator," but did not properly link to the program's Wikipedia article, which I've included here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Catch_a_Predator
 * By Prof. Landemore: Hello Yasmine, I took another look at your article and I can see the improvements. However, it's still a bit too messy (some sentences are unfinished for example) and I'm still missing (as per my request in the first comment above) a clearer history of the term and its origins. You mention a Jesuit thinker--is it because the term participatory justice is a religious notion? Who theorized the notion first and in what country? Also, it would be good if you could find a way to relate the theme of participatory justice to participatory democracy. Are there some common principles and aspirations or are these two completely separate dialogues?

Response to Peer Review:

I started editing in source mode, and now the citation formatting is correct (so there shouldn't be any unfinished sentences or formatting issues. I have now provided a clear history of the term and its origins. Although I mention a couple participatory justice models in use centuries ago, I emphasize the more recent history of participatory justice (since the 80's) since that is around the time the term was coined. I deleted the quote by the jesuit thinker because it was from the original wiki article and seemed out of place once a reread through the source that was cited. Also, I added a paragraph in the opening about the similarities between participatory justice and participatory democracy. I included a link to the wiki article on participatory democracy. Hopefully, the two terms are not similar enough to justify the convergence of the two. I, personally think that participatory democracy is a much broader topic and participatory justice covers enough ground that it should have its own article.

In the overview section, I added a community policing example, as well as more information on the advantages of participatory justice, influenced by the works of Stephens, Thomas, Giudice, and Rosenbaum, and Fede/Asto. I included a direct quote from Thomas and at the end of the judicial system overview section added a few comments about the proposition for a crowdjury system. I think its fitting to include the example at the end, since it moves from present, already-existing forms of participatory justice into future ones. I have added many more examples to the overview portion of the legislative system as well. My writing is more polished, my examples more concise, and my discussion of the origins and ethical implications of participatory justice more explicit. Hopefully, this marks a significant improvement from my draft phase!

Improvement Plan
- UNFORTUNATELY, somehow the original article got deleted from my sandbox :( BUT I can describe it. It was about half a page long. Had two of the same sentences from the first paragraph I wrote and the very last sentence of the opening (about catching a perpetrator). rest of article had a disadvantages section and an advantages section each with about 5-8 short bullet point phrases. Pretty much had to completely rewrite the C-grade article and only used a few of the same original sources.

-Replace the "Disadvantages" section with " Criticisms" and include information from the "Advantages" section in the "Overview" section for both JUDICIAL SYSTEM section and LEGISLATIVE SYSTEM section. Include examples all over the world of the use of participatory justice.

Article Rewrite: "Participatory Justice"
Participatory justice broadly speaking refers to the direct participation of those affected most by a particular decision, in the decision-making process itself: this could refer to decisions made in a court of law or by policymakers. Popular participation has been called "the ethical seal of a democratic society" by Friedhelm Hengsbach, a professor of Christian Social Science and Economic and Social Ethics a the Philosophical-Theological College Sankt Georgen in Frankfurt and "the politics of the future" by Gene Stephens, professor of criminology at the University of South Carolina. It is about "People and Relationships."

Various authors have claimed that examples of participatory justice date back to civilizations as old as that of the Canadian Aboriginals and Ancient Athenians, even if the terminology had not been in use then. In the society of Canadian Aboriginals, citizens were given the opportunity to give their own account of a dispute in public and determine the proper course of action, which sometimes involved issuing a public apology. Elders were viewed as authorities due to their unique knowledge of the circumstances of community members. In Ancient Athens, large popular courts, made up of 200 to 1000 randomly selected male citizens, shared in both functions of forming and of applying the law. The term "Participatory Justice" itself, however, was first used by Bellevue, Washington-based attorney Claire Sherman Thomas in 1984 to describe the process by which people act as responsible participants in the law making process, thereby contributing to causes of social justice. In 1986, Gene Stephens first used the term to describe an alternative to the adversarial model of justice system used in court.

Both definitions of participatory justice relate to the concept of participatory democracy, which shares similar aspirations: to provide the government with democratic legitimacy and make for a more inclusive, transparent, equal society, by allowing citizens to participate directly in political decision-making and lawmaking processes that affect their lives.

In rare cases, it also refers to the use of The Internet or a television reality show to catch a perpetrator.

Overview
Participatory justice can refer to the use of alternative dispute resolution, such as mediation, conciliation, and arbitration, in criminal and civil courts, instead of, or before, going to court. It is sometimes called "community dispute resolution". NGOs (Non-governmental organizations) may get involved in the administration of criminal justice. According to the National Advisory Commission of Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, delays in sentencing and lack of protection of rights of the accused contribute to attitudes of legal cynicism According to a large cohort of citizens, the guilty are freed while the innocent, and often the black and poor, are harassed. The participatory justice model, in turn, attempts to restore public confidence in the legal system.

Whereas the adversarial and disposition system is often slow-functioning, expensive, and inconsistent, the participatory justice model is a cheap and efficient way of resolution-making. Rather than rely on expensive attorneys and expert witnesses, the model relies on volunteers from the community, who are trained in mediation and counseling techniques. The resolution is often achieved quicker, because, by reaching a consent agreement implemented by all parties involved, there is no possibility of re litigation. In the participatory justice model, cooperation is valued instead of competition and reconciliation instead of winner-take-all. The need to protect the public, and respect the rights of ordinary citizens to a free but secure society is considered. This in turn helps preserve positive relationships between the parties involved. In modern-day Canada, for instance, community members are involved in almost every step of the judicial process, even before people are arrested and sent to court; community organizations establish working partnerships with police to focus attention on growing social problems, like child abandonment or housing code violations, and prevent crime.

Not only does the participatory justice model promote inclusion, according to several authors, but also socioeconomic equality. The adversarial/dispositional system requires enforcing laws that often represent the will of those with the most educational and monetary resources. As Stephens points out, most people who are perpetrators in a particular incident, whether civil or criminal, had also been victims at some point, so every person’s circumstances should be taken into consideration. Stahn mentions the importance of consulting victims at the reparation stage to determine whether they really believe the person who committed the crime against them is deserving of incarceration.

Finally, participatory justice serves as a crucial check on state power, that legitimizes the rule of law itself. As long as citizens believe in their ability to contribute to the law making and evaluation process, public consensus supports the rule of law. Without consensus, the government must rely on the letter of the law and threat of prosecution to maintain order; the government might resort to censorship and surveillance. The law becomes "instead of a vehicle of justice, the instrument of a bureaucratic, institutionalized, dehumanized government." Therefore, by reducing legal cynicism in communities, participatory justice effectively decreases the likelihood that the state will respond to this cynicism through use of overly punitive justice.

Once used primarily in Scandinavia, Asia, and Africa, participatory justice has been "exported" to the United States and Canada. It is used in a variety of cases, including between                  "Landlords and Tenants, Neighbours, Parents and Children, Families and Schools, Consumers and Merchants ... [and] victims of crime and offenders." For war-torn countries, participatory justice can promote coexistence and reconciliation, through an emphasis on universal participation.

An online and self-financed form of participatory justice, called the crowdjury system, has been promoted as an improved way of managing trials in the future. Witnesses to a crime can upload evidence online into a secure vault. Data can then be organized into useful knowledge by groups of 9 to 12 self-selected volunteers with expertise. If a defendant pleads guilty, they can propose a form of restoration, as a way to avoid harsher punishment; if they do not plead, an online trial will be held with a massive randomly-selected jury. Participants in the evidence review process will receive monetary compensation through Bitcoin or alt coin. According to crowdjury's proponents, this will help the government cut costs and create a more transparent judicial process.

Criticisms
Critics of the participatory justice model cite its purpose to often humiliate a particular party. Inkiko-Gacaca, a system of community courts established in 2002 to respond to the large number of suspected perpetrators imprisoned after the 1994 Rwandan genocide, is a famous example. “Rwanda’s failing experiment in restorative justice” Handbook of restorative justice: A global perspective, pgs. 422-434 < /ref> “The legacies of collective violence: the Rwandan genocide and the limits of the law,” Boston Review, 27(2) < /ref>

Meant to achieve lasting peace through the promotion of restorative justice, Gacaca, according to several authors, has only become more retributive and coercive. “Helena Cobban Replies”, Boston Review, 27(3-4), online < /ref> Through the process, Tutsi genocide survivors allegedly impose guilt on the Hutu, asking them to confess their deeds, express apologies to all victims and kin, and repay them tangibly, through public shaming.

The participatory justice model has also been critiqued for its lack of checks and balances and lack of participation of professional experts.  C Williams, Victim-Offender Mediation in New Law Journal, London, 1987 < /ref> Because the negotiators are usually not trained in the collection of evidence and are not privy to the criminal background of the alleged offender, the resolution may be made without full facts and knowledge. Furthermore, the offender's motivation is difficult to assess if the alternative is more formal punishment.

Overview
Participatory justice can also refer to the rights of individuals and groups to actively participate in policy-making and engage in debates about social justice

Meant to achieve lasting peace through the promotion of restorative justice, Gacaca, according to several authors, has only become more retributive and coercive. Through the process, Tutsi genocide survivors allegedly impose guilt on the Hutu, asking them to confess their deeds, express apologies to all victims and kin, and repay them tangibly, through public shaming. [14]

The participatory justice model has also been critiqued for its lack of checks and balances and lack of participation of professional experts. Because the negotiators are usually not trained in the collection of evidence and are not privy to the criminal background of the alleged offender, the resolution may be made without full facts and knowledge. Furthermore, the offender's motivation is difficult to assess if the alternative is more formal punishment.[15]

Legislative System
Overview

Participatory justice can also refer to the rights of individuals and groups to actively participate in policy-making and engage in debates about social justice. In a participatory justice model, rule makers rely on the participation of affected interests rather than on administrators, politicians, and the general population. This often leads to the redistribution of resources and recognition of those whose voices have historically been excluded, due in part to a lack of financial and educational resources to contribute.

The Negotiated Rulemaking Act made it a priority to ensure that people most affected by a particular issue, particularly poor people, would be able to take part in the negotiation process; the government provides agency funding to defray costs of participation in rulemaking. Giving marginalized groups the chance to participate in the decision making process can help ensure they participate in the community more generally as well. For example, during the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), disabled peoples organizations (DPOs) were engaged in and consulted during the drafting of a comprehensive program that would enable the disabled to participate in the civil, political, economic, social, and cultural life of the community. Also, within the CRPD, states were encouraged to involve DPOs when preparing reports for the body meant to monitor the implementation of the program.

Arguments supporting various participatory justice models in the U.S. have also cited the equal protection clause 14th amendment, protection of individual legal rights, upholding of autonomy, integrationism, and democratic principles in their support. Participatory justice models are seen as a way to fight against the paternalistic approach of the government in which legislators choose for citizens, without their input. When affected individuals can participate in the policymaking process, they become viewed as subjects rather than objects.

Consensus rule is more administratively efficient in the long run because it avoids lengthy post-enactment litigation. The legislature or administrative body using the participatory justice model also gains legitimacy, since it implies accountability. Participatory justice models have long been used by environmental justice movements. Often times, participation was originally denied not because of institutional or political failure, but because those in question aren’t recognized as in the domain of justice. Young argues that participatory justice rather than distributive justice was the primary demand of communities like Afton, NC. People objected that they were being subjected to risks and exposure without their consent and without mechanisms to articulate their opposition. The unfortunate reality is that those people who live in countries that will be destroyed first due to rising sea levels won’t be included in decisions about when decisions are made.

Criticisms
One of the common criticisms of participatory justice models is that they might reduce efficiency, like in the environmental justice model discussed. Incorporating the voices of all affected interests is a difficult and long process, especially when the issue being decided upon is significantly controversial. Another disadvantage is that, even when you have a negotiating body and it does include affected interests, it might be difficult for all interests to be equally represented. This problem, however, can be fixed by providing those negotiating with negotiation skills, as well as development of relevant information and payment of expenses involved in participation, like in the PJ model employed SSA’s representative payment program. Another disadvantage of using a participatory justice model is the inexperience of those participating. The participants may not have as much respect for the wide number of legal and ethical considerations that need to be made when writing policy proposals. For this reason, some critics argue that policy experts should be able to mediate the conversations on various policies, especially when modern laws are much more complex than those in places like Ancient Athens, where laws were inscribed on panels all over the city and set up in the agora.