Restorative Justice advice

Hi, I’m thinking about emailing my perpetrators and the teacher I told (who did fucking nothing about it) telling them the effect their actions had on me, and how much it’s fucked me up. I’m really not looking for revenge or retribution, just an apology.

However, here’s the issue. My perpetrators definitely knew that they were making me upset and uncomfortable, but I don’t know if they know it was SA bc cognitive dissonance can be a bitch. I personally would be absolutely suicidal if someone told me that I’d assaulted them, like I might genuinely kms. However, I do suffer from OCD and severe anxiety so I realise that other people probably wouldn’t react as strongly as I would to information like that. So I’m worried about emailing them to try to get a reply bc I don’t want to badly affect their mental health. Has anyone had experience of this/know how to broach this topic with someone without feeling like you’re destroying them? I really need an apology from them, I feel like it would help so much but I don’t wanna make them feel suicidal or anything.

Also I’m secretly worried that I wasn’t actually SAed and that I’m just being overdramatic or making things up, so if it’s alright would someone be able to let me know their thoughts on this? Basically when I was 12 a group of girls used to regularly try to touch my boobs. One day I was in the changing room and the attacked me- they groped my boobs and tried to finger me. I managed to escape and run away. Does this count as SA tho? And since they were so young, is it really even relevant any more or fair for me to contact them about it?

I’d really like to know if there are any that can hold a virtual circle. I don’t know any RJ circles in my country and maybe I can find someone online that could help me.

There was a question a while back (https://www.reddit.com/r/restorativejustice/comments/1162c16/does_rj_depend_on_laws/) on whether Restorative Justice (RJ) can be administered if no law was violated. The answer seems to be yes in theory, but very little additional information was provided.

I'm looking for resources to read about the administration of RJ when no legal violation or legally- punishable wrongdoing has occurred. This could happen when laws have not been updated to keep up with social reality, or perhaps even in cases where the laws or legal system itself is unjust, such as in totalitarian countries or areas without strong individual rights. It may also happen in cases where there is strong disagreement on what the law should be, for instance regarding abortion rights or the rights of or legal recognition of transgender people.

Examples:

- John has recently been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of experiencing corporal punishment from his father in childhood. The matter has been reported to and investigated by Child Protective Services (CPS) and the local police, both of which have determined that what John's father did, while perhaps unfortunate, did not meet the legal definition of child abuse in the applicable jurisdiction and thus no charges in criminal or family court will be sought (or as an alternative, John's father was formally charged with child abuse but found not guilty by a court because his actions did not meet the applicable statutory definition of child abuse). John accepts this, but decides he would like to engage a restorative justice practitioner to hold a conference with his father, where John can tell his father how much he hurt him and ask for a heartfelt apology and help paying for therapy.

- Alice has an abortion without the consent of the father of the fetus, Bob, in a jurisdiction in which this is lawful. No laws have been broken, so the police and courts have no reason to get involved, but Bob feels personally harmed and oppressed (emotional trauma and related harm) by the loss of his child and hires a restorative justice practitioner to arrange an extralegal RJ conference with Alice. Alice decides to attend the conference, but surprises Bob and his RJ practitioner by bringing her own RJ practitioner along with a request for Bob to apologize and make amends to Alice for trying to control her body through RJ. The parties stand in opposition to each other and it is unclear who is the primary offender or even who has harmed whom. Since no laws have been violated, neither party has recourse to the courts or legal system to label one or the other as an "offender", "perp", or "criminal". Now, obviously, Alice and Bob's relationship is pretty much dead at this point, but the question remains how an RJ practitioner would decide who has harmed whom and what an appropriate RJ outcome would be.

Discussion:

One obvious problem with basing an RJ case off of harm not recognized in law is deciding what exactly should constitute recognized harm in an RJ setting and what falls under those ordinary slights and inconveniences that are part of living in this world, but that seems like it could be worked through. One concern I would have is the potential that, with RJ practice uncoupled from legal definitions of harm and victimization, a chilling effect could be cast over people's behavior - for example, an act I myself commit that is perfectly legal could be retroactively considered harmful by an RJ practitioner and result in a victim requesting an RJ conference with me. While, of course, I would be free to just refuse to participate in such a conference (as RJ is supposed to be voluntary), it might feel awkward or hypocritical of me to do so while also championing extralegal RJ practice.

I also know that the majority of RJ practices (including, as far as I can tell, all of the ones in my area) are funded through the criminal justice system and thus only take referrals when laws have been violated, but I'm interested in reading about practices where this is not the case.

I am interested in theory, but especially about practical aspects of running such an RJ practice, including how harm is defined if not by the presence of a violation of law, when a case should be accepted vs rejected, and how such practice is funded without a referral and a promise of funding from the local criminal justice system.

I am wondering if there are any ongoing virtual community circles offered anywhere? I am doing lots of work with RJ but the missing link for me is I’m not currently in restorative practice with people. I miss being in community in this way and where I live now does not have any local opportunities. I know NACRJ occasionally hosts. Anyone else?

One feature of essentially all models of restorative justice (RJ) that I've encountered is that they only start after the person who has caused harm ("offender") has admitted their actions and accepted responsibility, and this typically only after they have first been adjudicated guilty by the non-restorative criminal court system or a proxy, such as a formal school disciplinary panel, parole board, or other formal non-RJ body.

I'm curious if there are any models of RJ that include the fact-finding process of guilt, allowing a disputed case to proceed entirely through RJ without involving non-RJ bodies or processes. For example, here's a hypothetical:

- Racist graffiti is discovered on a wall. After an initial investigation, it appears that the graffiti writer was either Bob, Jill, Sue, or Dave. All four of them decline to admit responsibility, but agree to take part in a community RJ circle to determine what, if anything, needs to be done to restore community harmony. The local criminal justice system either agrees not to prosecute or formally diverts the case to RJ pending a favorable RJ outcome. The RJ circle meets, interviews witnesses, analyzes physical evidence, and correlates it all using expanded rules of evidence not typically allowed in a criminal court but congruent with RJ. The circle determines that Jill drew the graffiti as a result of internally-held bias, and recommends that she clean up the graffiti and attend 20 hours of anti-racism seminars. Jill may or may not "confess" at this point, but accepts the determination of the circle and agrees to perform the tasks it has assigned her. The circle sets a date two months in the future to monitor her progress. The local criminal justice system marks the case as resolved without charges. Everyone goes forth rejoicing that the system works and no one has to go to jail or end up with a criminal record.

Does this model exist anywhere in theory or practice? If so, where can I read about it?

I do understand that most programs today for training new RJ practitioners don't go into depth on evidence and investigation (e.g. DNA testing, fingerprinting, tire track measurement, blood splatter analysis, forensic linguistics, etc.), but that doesn't mean that there couldn't be such a program in the future designed to train RJ practitioners who intend to take on adjudication.

Addendum:

I do realize that RJ, as a non-coercive process that requires buy-in from the accused, cannot fully replace existing coercive (non-RJ) justice systems. Generally speaking, the accused saying "I didn't do it" halts the RJ process. I'm asking about a model where the RJ process could continue from "I didn't do it", where the accused is given an opportunity to show that they didn't do it and therefore shouldn't have to restore anything, and where if the RJ panel finds them responsible anyway, they can choose to either accept that finding and move forward (plan restoration activities) or have their case transferred to the coercive justice system (criminal court, etc.) that has the legal power to incarcerate or fine the accused without their consent.

Hey all!

Curious if such a thing would exist anywhere: I'm looking for transcripts of peacemaking circles, ideally in a first nations setting (but not necessary). Either an official document, like produced by a court... or in some kind of academic case study. Or anywhere else honestly!

Any ideas are greatly appreciated.

Dear Friends in Faith,

For who among you does not depend on the "meaning of words?" This post is about the sanctimony and sanctimoniousness of ideals. For everyone involved in a legal approach has goals, not necessarily their own, but necessarily by their own interpretation. True justice cannot exist without common, explicable standards. Relying on common law indicates a technicality-infused legal system; one we turn away from. Disclaimer: my critical question is no critique of anyone's content, nor is it yet a critique of any ideology.

With respect and deference to their goals, consider feminism and panafricanism. I believe the cultural struggle regarding 'how much equality is too much' stems from the combination of two reactions--neither of which are wrong on their own. Firstly, idealists of any stripe acknowledge (non-ideal-blatant) inequality and, ascribing offense, take a stance against it. Second, without establishing a common landing strip for our intended approach (in violent language, the offenders), we can get into a sustained landing pattern. On their own these would represent (1) evaluation and (2) philosophical speculation. By putting them together I believe we enter into a cognitively dissonant dual-questioning state, in which we can lose sight of our own values and maintain a state of striving. Social justice movements compete thereby for gains. By participating in unjust systems they end up marginalizing everyone but the monthly spectacular state-sponsored pride subscription, which is potentially a token for success or a scapegoat for failure. What do you think?

Either way, imperfection creates inequalities, and the options for philanthropists, which marginalized community to support, are as many as precariat populations to imbalance. You can say we neglect class, but even there I would say we are requiring systems of self-interest to navigate ourselves, and therefore our legal systems. Our problem is philosophical, and addressing this will improve our legal approach. Any split-brains regarding inequality and the limits of 'prosperity' speed up elitism within marginalized groups: in this way idealism becomes a mechanism for marginalization. For our purposes, I will label our relevant antagonist as 'retributive justice.'

Any imbalances result from the sustained landing pattern: ideologies fail to land because of their reactivity. This reactivity shows itself in groups via individuals. So I would like to ask the individuals here: what makes you think that your approach will land? To what degree do you account for established justice? What do you intend to restore? Finally, the real kicker: how much has looking into the void of "forgivable crime" opened options that skirt the standards of common sense?

Good luck!

Hi I’m doing my masters dissertation on restorative justice for juvenile offenders, my study only takes 10 minutes please help me widen the research on this topic via the study in the link below

https://mmu.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eDTPvbMi8zUMzJQ

Hi all!

Curious your thoughts here-- I am wondering if there is a place for RJ within the criminal legal system for sexual offenses and intimate partner violence.

Right now, it exists, though rare, outside of the criminal legal system. As someone who experienced a decade of sexual harm as a child, I would like accountability through a criminal process, but would want a RJ option. Because I don't have this option, I have done nothing because the cost of going through a facilitation is 4-6K from one proposal I have so far. I also learned that VAWA's pilot program for restorative practices specifically carves out of funding anyone who has a pending prosecution which does not make sense to me (statue here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/12514)

Curious your thoughts about this question and any resources you may think helpful to my learning. Thanks in advance.

Posting from a throwaway.

I'm sorry if this isn't the right place to ask this, but my social circle has recently been caught up in some major sexual assault-related issues that I have no idea how to begin to address. I'm seeking advice from people who are practiced with engaging restorative justice policies, but I'm not sure where the best place would be to talk about the situation and ask for this advice would be. I thought this subreddit might be a good place to start since it's centered on discussions about restorative justice as a whole. Can anyone direct me to the right place (either a sub or a forum on a different website)? Or would it be okay for me to post my question in this sub?

I teach a restorative justice class in college, an elective one (which means I get students from different majors: law, medicine, engineering, etc.), but recently I feel I have the wrong approach: too many texts, too much theory and people doesn't engage well.

I'm thinking about turning the class more to an "experience", in hopes to foster abilities and attitudes necessary for the application of retorative practices in daily life, leaving the theorical aspect to a minimum, and the most dense material for those who want to dive deeper. So, for example, I want to work in empathy, asertive communication and so on, but that would require a lot of different kinds of dinamics, games and activities throughout the semester

Could you recommend me activities or point me to somewhere were I could look for ideas?

Circle conversations are great for maintaining relationships in the class room. The circle brings to community together, explores new guidelines for the class and gives everyone a voice. To learn more about it I will be talking more on my podcast Counselor Apprenticeship.

I'm sure this is a basic question but I'm curious - can someone outline the potential outcomes when a victim refuses to participate in a circle?

Can it happen without the victim? Or does that nullify the whole prospect of RJ for the case/offender?

This question is directly inspired by the recent question Does RJ depend on laws? I was thinking about potential RJ cases where no law was broken and that got me thinking whether there is a limit on what kinds of lawful harm can be the subject of RJ. For example, if you beat me in a game of chess, no competent RJ facilitator is going to buy my argument that I suffered the harm of "checkmate" and am thus in need of an RJ conference to facilitate the healing and restoration of my rooks and bishops. If I leave a religious movement, no RJ facilitator will take the case that my ceasing to pay tithes to that movement is a wrong that can be remedied by RJ. I can post whatever political messages I want in my window without worrying that my neighbors are going to call the local RJ practitioner to stage an intervention for me. Most RJ practitioners would not take a case in which someone was accused of voting against a powerful politician or "offending" a bully.

Is there a list or framework of harms that are deemed by RJ to not be in scope for the kinds of harm that RJ deals with regardless of whether said harms are/were legal where committed?

If there are actual cases that you've seen where someone was clearly harmed, but that harm was deemed to be not a kind of harm recognized in RJ, I'm interested in hearing about how it was decided that the harm wasn't relevant to RJ.

Now clearly, punching someone in the face, stealing their stuff, slashing their tires, setting their dog on fire, or waking them up every morning at 3 AM with a megaphone are things that might be handled in RJ, but those things are already illegal in most, if not all, places.

I was recently reading about community-focused RJ practices, i.e. practices that use some sort of community consensus or at least consultation rather than just consisting of the two involved parties plus a RJ practitioner.

I used to not think much about the exact boundaries of my community, but this changed after moving to a small, rural town within walking distance of the border and thinking more about the people "here" versus "over there". While we are culturally similar and share a language, we have separate political and legal structures. I cannot serve on juries "over there" nor can I vote or hold public office there.

From the perspective of RJ, how do you determine where a community ends and the next one begins? Do you go by legal or political boundaries (e.g. city limits, demarcation lines, treaty boundaries, etc.)? Do you develop alternate boundaries based on sociocultural studies that might have little to do with who votes where and for what? Are the size, scope, and boundaries of the applicable community defined specifically for each RJ case, so, for example, one case might involve a community of several millions across three international borders, while another case might involve a community of just five neighbors who live on one side of a street?

Where I'm getting at with this question is the nuts and bolts of rallying and consulting the community. For example, suppose you are hosting a community consultation regarding an incident that happened a few months ago and I show up uninvited. Would you ever say something to me like "Sorry, I appreciate you taking the time to come to share your input, but, for purposes of this community consult, we are defining the community to consist solely of people maintaining their primary place of abode within half a kilometer of the place where the incident occurred, which is 332 Maple Avenue. According to your ID, you live on 432 West Shore Road, which is three quarters of a kilometer away."?

if some conduct isn't illegal but it nonetheless causes harm , would it be covered under restorative justice ?

I'm a table top role playing gamer who wants to play a game centered around community-building and development aid, both in the sense of physical infrastructure and human/social capital. I'd like to know how to practice restorative techniques in my interactions with players and non-player characters alike (which will hopefully improve my irl skills as well). Where can I find resources on restorative techniques and how to apply them?

Hi all!

Any thoughts about effectiveness of doing a restorative circle with a successful adult individual with grandiose narcissist personality traits? Example of such traits: entitlement, feelings of superiority, exploitation of & manipulation of others; if confronted: displays of hostile & verbal anger and aggression.

Thanks!

As title says, I’m looking for some rj grassroots orgs that focus on gun violence. I’m having lots of trouble finding any that are truly grassroots without any state connections.

Basically what the title says. There are a lot of famous revenge killings wherein a victim of sexual assault or muder took the law in their own hands and murderered or assaulted the offender? People in the US might have heard of the famous Gary Plauche case. But there are several more. So my question is what is the mechanism for dealing with such cases?

The Prison Math Project is an not-for-profit organization that helps connect incarcerated people looking to expand their mathematics knowledge, with pen pal mentors. We currently need help fundraising so that we can continue to produce our newsletter, hold our annual Pi day event, and develop our NoTech programming software. If you are interested in being a volunteer grant writer for our organization, reach out to mentors@pmathp.org.

I am writing an argumentative essay asserting restorative justice is an effective option for cases in which the chance of rehabilitation is high. I have many many reasons why I believe this to be the case but I am looking for logical reasoning AGAINST the practice of RJ as I cannot think of a single reason.

Tl;dr: I am looking for reasons against restorative justice.

Thank you!