Restorative Justice is not a replacement of retributive justice, but a compliment.

It seeks the
rehabilitation of the wrongdoer and the repair of the Victim's injury. LEWIS B. SMEDES

Yes, there is a difference but the hope for the intended outcome is the same. There is a difference in the
mindset of the mediator because there is a difference in the long-term vs short-term impacts for a child
versus an adult. In addition, the actual success rate of it working is different.

Each offense deserves different ways of discipline for it to work. If there is only one way of discipline
then that leaves out the fear the adult/child would have so they won't fear consequences. Typically the
degree is different because young children don't have much of an impact on their actions short term like
adults.

At each age in life, people should've learned certain behaviors typically. This is why there is a difference
in juvenile and adult charges in prisons. We want to acknowledge, however, that everyone is different so
knowing how much they can specifically handle is the only way to help them. That doesn't give them an
excuse for what they did if it is an adult vs if a child did it. If they have a disability that too because
certain things work for them.

Everyone has a past and knowing their story about why they might've behaved a certain way can help to
narrow the focus of the discipline. This is why children and adults are different.

It is up to the victim. They are the ones hurt by this situation so we should leave it up to them. And what
they think about these:

1. The degree of the offense

2. The mindset of the victims (if they want to save this murderer from murdering more people then they
will go help)

3. Their own set of beliefs/values i.e. religion)

A Lot of responsibility is given to the victim because their story and their way of being hurt are what
usually move the offenders to understand what they did is bad. Victims play a big role so they should be
given the choice to choose.
Restorative justice in the school setting, views misconduct, not as school rule-breaking, and therefore a
violation of the institution, but as a violation against people and relationships in the school and wider
school community. Restorative justice means that the harm done to people and relationships needs to
be explored and that harm needs to be repaired. Restorative justice provides an opportunity for schools
to practice participatory, deliberative democracy in their attempts to problem-solve around those
serious incidents of misconduct that they find so challenging. It also provides an opportunity to explore
how the life chances of students (either offenders or victims) and their families might be improved, and
how the system might be transformed in ways likely to minimize the chance of further harm.

John Furlong in his sociological analysis of the disruption and the disaffected student, calls for ''a
reconstruction of a sociological perspective on deviance must be at a psychological and particularly at an
emotional level.

By practicing a restorative approach to problem-solving, schools are also made accountable for those
aspects of structure, policy, organization, curriculum, and pedagogy which have contributed to the harm
and injury. Restorative approaches, as such, are generally discouraged by the authoritarian, control-
oriented style of school management from the principal to the classroom teacher, and rewarded and
modeled by district and central office management. On a practical, "consumer" level, restorative justice
processes such as community conferencing, generate greater levels of participant satisfaction
(procedural, emotional, and substantive) including a sense of justice, greater levels of social support for
those affected, and reduced levels of reoffending, borne out by the evaluations in both studies.

Thomas Sergiovanni in his book, Building Community in Schools (1994), echoes these sentiments in
emphasizing the importance of shifting the focus from schools as organizations based on contracts and
rewards to schools as communities bound by moral commitment, trust, and a sense of purpose: ''values,
beliefs, norms and other dimensions of the community may be more important than the relationships
themselves.
Imagine if teachers and school administrators had a working knowledge of these "relationship" theories.
Imagine if they were able to translate this body of knowledge by modeling and teaching, what impact
this might have on school governance, and decisions regarding policy and practice across curriculum,
pedagogy, school organization, and behavior management. One might even dream that this knowledge
could be put to good use to uncover and minimize the chance of Furlong''s ''hidden injuries''.

Much needs to be taken into account if restorative justice practices such as conferencing are to be
implemented successfully and, more importantly, sustained across schools.

The responsibility for managing student behavior is not the sole turf of classroom teachers or
administrators. As well, teacher aides, tuckshop convenors, office administrators, and janitor-
groundsmen all have contact with students, and attempt, whether or not they are aware of it, to
influence behavior. All adult members of the school community, including school councils and parent
bodies must be introduced to the philosophy and practice of restorative justice with its emphasis on
building a sense of community through enhancing and restoring relationships; that they are given a
structured opportunity to reflect on current practices, on notions of compliance, of justice, of
democratic approaches to problem-solving, and what is important to them in relationships.

Schools preparing to adopt conferencing, need to make careful decisions about who should be trained.
In our experience, staff who have good process skills, who have already demonstrated some experience
in problem-solving, and who are party to decisions about how an incident should be dealt with make
good candidates. This group includes, in particular, principals, deputy principals, year coordinators,
guidance officers, community education counselors, and heads of department.

Use of restorative processes for dealing with incidents of inappropriate behavior and high-level conflict
for staff Not surprisingly, the practices for dealing with difficult staff situations are no less punitive than
those used for students. While it is rare for staff to be "suspended" or "excluded" (except for criminal
matters), experience in a wide range of school settings has led to our conclusions that current formal
procedures for resolving diminished work-performance issues, and grievance processes, for example, if
not wholly punitive, are extremely punishing emotionally, with the system paying the price through
absenteeism, sick leave, and resignations.
Restorative justice views indiscipline as harmful to relationships and in doing so, problem-solving can be
focused on the present (repairing the harm), and the future (transforming the system in some way to
prevent further harm). It focuses our attention on relationships between all members of the school
community and teaches us the value of relationships in achieving quality outcomes for students.

The theories which explain the success of restorative processes can inform professional development
efforts aimed at building healthy relationships. These, in turn, underpin issues of pedagogy, curriculum,
and school organization, all critical components determining school culture. Restorative justice
represents an opportunity to address the complex issues which influence student outcomes and insists
that schools become accountable for creating an authentic supportive school environment.

As the growing evidence made clear that exclusionary discipline negatively impacted students on a
range of outcomes, particularly for minority youth, a search for viable alternatives ensued. Restorative
justice, first introduced in criminal justice initiatives in the 1970s, became one such alternative.

Restorative Justice is a kind of problem-solving approach to crime that involves the parties themselves
and the community generally, in an active relationship with statutory agencies. It is not any particular
practice, but a set of principles that may orientate the general practice of any agency or group about
crime.

A Restorative Justice process encourages the offender to take responsibility for their harmful behavior
in a significant way, to gain insight into the causes and effects of that behavior on others, to change that
behavior, and to be accepted back into society. This process of Restorative Justice gives the victim a
forum or a platform to ask questions, receive answers, gain understanding, explain the impact of the
crime on them, and contribute to the outcome of the process. The process may result in the victim
receiving an apology, restitution, services, or some other form of reparation. It creates a safe
environment in which the victim can seek closure. Restorative Justice processes have the potential to
provide society with a chance to articulate its values and expectations, understand the underlying
causes of crime, and determine what can be done to repair the damage caused. In doing so, it could
contribute to society's well-being and potentially reduce crimes in the future.

Restorative Justice is concerned with healing victims’ injuries, restoring offenders to law-abiding lives,
and repairing harm done to interpersonal relationships and society. It seeks to involve all stakeholders
and provide opportunities for those most affected by the crime to be directly involved in the process of
responding to the harm caused. A central premise of restorative justice is that victims, offenders, and
the affected communities are all key stakeholders in the restorative process. 6 Victims include not only
those directly affected by the offense, but also family members and members of the affected
community. The safety, support, and needs of these victims are the starting points for any restorative
justice process. 7 Addressing these needs and the needs of society is necessary if public demands for
severe punishment are to be quelled.

A restorative justice process also aims to empower victims to participate effectively in dialogue or
mediation with offenders. Victims take an active role in directing the exchange that takes place, as well
as defining the responsibilities and obligations of offenders. Offenders are also to be encouraged to
participate in this exchange, to understand the harm they have caused to victims, and to take active
responsibility for it. This means making efforts on their part to set things right, to make amends for their
violations, by committing to certain obligations, that may come in the form of reparations, restitution, or
community work. While fulfilling these obligations may be experienced as painful, the goal is not
revenge, but the restoration of healthy relationships between individuals and within communities that
have been most affected by the crime.