Standard Discipline vs Restorative Justice
Primary Concern
Rules have been violated
People and relationships have been harmed
Questions
-
What rule was broken?
-
Who broke it?
3. What consequence/punishment is deserved?
-
Who has been affected?
-
What are their needs?
3. Who has the obligation to address the needs, to put right the harms, to restore relationships?
Principles
Unbiased/Unemotional/Unattached/ Adversarial (3rd Party)
​
Accountability: consequences are imposed, which results in passive accountability.
​
Compliance: Hierarchical control brings order to the community.
Engagement: involves those impacted, including the community to identify what happened, needs, and influence outcome (1st Party).
Accountability: encourage appropriate responsibility to address needs and repair the harm; actively engage the person who caused harm around the questions (active accountability).
Restoration: acknowledge and repair the harm caused by, and revealed by, wrongdoing.
​
Messages / Assumptions
-
Wrongdoing harms people and relationships.
-
When people and relationships are harmed, needs are created.
3. These needs inform obligations; the primary obligation is to heal and “put right” the harms; this is a just response.
-
The fact that a law, rule or policy was violated is paramount.
-
The primary response must target the offender.
-
Punishment is a just response and indicates justice has been served.
Worldview
Social Control
Social Engagement
This table produced by Jon Kidde is a work in progress. It draws from numerous contemporary leaders and pioneers in the field of restorative justice including but not limited to the following: Howard Zehr, Brenda Morrison, Rita Renjitham Alfred, Dorothy Vaandering, and Lorraine Stutsman Amstutz and Judy Mullet. Please contact me with questions and suggestions: JonKidde@GreenOmegaL3C.org.
Restorative Justice: a yardstick for schools[1]
Restorative principles are relatively simple; application is as nuanced as how people relate to each other.
​
-
Focuses on relationships.
-
Does the response go beyond focusing on rule and policy violations?
-
Is there equal concern given to harm experienced by individuals and the community?
​
2. Give voice to the person(s) harmed.
-
Does the response address the needs of the person harmed, both the immediate victim as well as others who may be affected?
-
Does it allow an opportunity for those harmed to be part of the resolution?
​
3. Give voice to person(s) who caused the harm.
-
Has the person who harmed been asked what s/he needs?
-
Does it allow an opportunity for those who harmed to be part of the resolution?
​
4. Engage in collaborative problem solving.
-
Are the solutions being arrived at collaboratively, meaning that all those affected (or representatives of those affected) by the harm/incident are fully involved?
-
Given the imbalances that often exist between persons and institutions, have these been recognized, acknowledged, discussed, and addressed?
5. Enhance responsibility.
-
Does the response help the person take responsibility for the harm caused, or does it focus primarily on punishment?
-
Does the person who caused the harm understand how his/her actions have affected other people? If not, is there a plan in place to assist the person in a process of understanding.
​
6. Empower change and growth.
-
Does the response allow the person who harmed to be involved in the process of repair with a concern toward that individual’s growth and competency?
-
Has the individual acknowledged responsibility for the harm of her actions? If not, what steps should be taken to address ways of supporting that person’s need for growth and competency?
​
7. Plan for restoration.
-
Does the response allow for the person who harmed, as well as the person harmed, to be supported and reintegrated back into the community?
-
Has the issue of accountability been appropriately addressed to the satisfaction of the person harmed?
​
[1] Modified from Amstutz, L., & Mullet, J. (2005) The Little Book of Restorative Discipline, pg 28-32.