Here is their advice.
Criteria for Taking an RJ Approach
Emerson notes three core criteria for referring a student conduct case to restorative justice:
….Cases that are less appropriate for RJ include:
….Options when a Student is Less Remorseful
To handle situations of this kind responsibly (and without re-victimizing the other parties involved in the incident), Osincup suggests considering measures like these:
….Donâ€™t Rely Only on Victim-Initiated Cases
CSUâ€™s process is unique in that the conflict resolution officer meets with the person who caused the harm first before discussing the option of restorative justice with the parties harmed. Most other RJ programs are victim-driven. If most of your referrals come from student conduct, there are several advantages to meeting with the offender first:
….Define a Clear Policy
Emerson and Osincup suggest that itâ€™s critical to define a clear policy and a clear process, outlining:
In the absence of a clear policy that is communicated both across the student conduct office and among senior administrators, there will be a greater risk of political pressures influencing the process. While cases of this kind may be rare, they can be prove extremely problematic when they do arise.
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