This article leaves a lot of questions unanswered about the integrity and due diligence of the RJ process that was taken. The background of the person who caused harm was not mentioned nor any previous assaults they may have had. The only RJ process mentioned was a parenting class and violence prevention course while on bail. It is unknown how intense and long these classes were and how they evaluated behavior change. Furthermore, a key principle of restorative justice is accountability and remorse factor however, it was agreed that the person who caused harm did not exhibit that element. The article also did not mention any follow-on restorative programs or care.
For RJ to be successful, all elements must be considered i.e. prior incidents relating to the incident, familial support, length of time and authenticity of accountability programs, remorse statements, etc.
Perhaps follow on care and support (like Vermont's COSA model) should also be rendered to continue to keep the person accountable while also offering support needed to keep them on the progressive path.
------------------------------
Leslie Di Biase
Placer County Juvenile Probation
Rocklin CA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 07-29-2024 12:45
From: Heather Blair
Subject: Restorative Reflections: Your Weekly RJ Update, July 29, 2024
Hi RJTP Working Group members,
See this story about a family violence incident in New Zealand and what happened when the person who caused harm decided they were interested in restorative justice options.
Post your thoughts and reflections and please share suggestions for how we can consider insights from the article into our tool kit.
If you see something you think would benefit the group, please share it with me!
Looking forward to seeing your Restorative Reflections.
Best,
------------------------------
Heather Blair
Restorative Justice Grant Specialist
California District Attorneys Association
Sacramento CA
------------------------------