Restorative Justice Approach Essay

Restorative justice approach is a value-based method of responding to wrongdoing and conflict. It focuses on the individual hurt, the individual causing the harm, and the affected community (Bazemore, and Schiff, 2015 p. 68). In most cases, teachers are faced with the problem of behaviors in school. Restorative justice is the best tool to deal with misbehaviors because it focuses on transforming wrongdoing by healing the harm that is caused, particularly to relationships. Teachers, students, parents, and the entire school community work together to identify the cause of behavior to solve it. They develop possible solutions that can be used to repair that harm. They all focus on implementing these solutions and relationships are put right. It minimizes bad behaviors making schools safe for everyone and the stakeholders become happy as they relate with one another.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Reintegrative Shaming Theory is a theory of restorative justice. The theory does not aim at punishing offenses but instead, its focus on hearing the harm. In many cases, when a student had done something wrong, she is punished or sent home but using this approach, the teachers do not do something that makes students feel bad. They make the offense committed shameful but not the doer. The teachers assume that the students and their behaviors are not the same, and by separating the two it reintegrates the offender back to the school community. According to Braithwaite and coauthors, an individual may be shamed if his/her behaviors are regarded as crimes and eventually excluded from the society (Braithwaite, Ahmed, and Braithwaite, 2006). On the contrast, reintegrative shaming aims at apology, forgiveness, and repentance. It is effective in changing student's behaviors in schools because improve their conscience and builds a relationship of respect and approval when the offender is rectified.

Eliza Ahmed conducted a study to determine whether the theory reintegrate shaming theory reduces school children misbehaviors. This study predicts self-initiated bullying from three variables: shame, forgiveness, and shaming. The 1875 participants were from Bangladeshi school children where 60 percents were girls and 40 percent boys (Ahmed, and Braithwaite, 2005). Data mean grade was 8.28 and the researcher used the survey to collect data. Results from the study showed that reintegrative shaming and forgiveness were correlated to less bullying. In instances where students were exposed to high shame, they acknowledged their responsibility and were ready to change their behaviors. On the other hand, low shame shift into anger or blaming others were also related to less bullying. The study compared the children exposed to shame and less stigmatizing in schools and also at home. Forgiveness reduced bullying by 22.4 percent while reintegrative shaming reduced this behavior by 11.3 percent.

Social discipline window theory is also another theory of restorative justice that applies many setting. It explains four methods oh how to maintain behavioral boundaries and social norms. The four are considered as different mixtures of high or low support and high or low control. The restorative domain combines both high support and high control. It involves collaboration or doing thins with people as opposed to doing thins to people or for people. Doing thins to people is coercive and similarly, during for them is not effective since there is no involvement (Bazemore, and Schiff, 2015). The teachers apply this theory by ensuring that they involve the students in every activity they undertake. When students feel that they are part of the school, their chance of misbehaving is minimal. The teachers do not exercise much control by directing and restraining students in schools. Instead of exerting much control on students, the teachers support them by providing services that nature them. A high or low level of control is associated with a high or low level of support to demonstrate four general methods to the regulation of behavior and social discipline. They include restorative, punitive, neglectful and permissive.

The teachers relate harm caused by a student's offending behavior to certain social responsibilities vital to meet those behaviors. This connecting structure differentiates the interests of the school children, teachers, parents, and the school according to how each party is affected by a behavior. To change the offending action of school students, teachers ensure that they employ measures that bring about collaboration, involvement, transformation, and empowerment to them.

Paul McCold and Ted Wachtel conducted a study to determine the effect Social discipline window approach on the behaviors of people. In the study, data were retrieved from published program assessment experiment where victims and wrongdoers were surveyed concerning their sense of fairness and the overall satisfaction (McCold and Wachtel, 2002 p.17). The results revealed that on average victims and their wrongdoer's rate as more satisfying and fair those programs that involve their communities of care compared to those that exclude it.

Conclusion

In conclusion, restorative justice approach helps teachers to deal with problem behavior in school by Social discipline window and Reintegrative Shaming theories. The approach focuses on the individual hurt, the one causing harm and the school itself. It transforms bad behaviors in schools by healing the wound caused in a relationship. Reintegrative Shaming separates the offenders from the offense and hence bringing them closer to the community rather than excluding them. This helps them acknowledge their mistakes and rectify their behaviors hence avoid any chance that the offender will repeat the offense. Social discipline window aims at transforming, involving, collaborating, and empowering school children. The approach is effective in changing students behaviors and teachers should continue using them and school will run smoothly.

References

McCold, P. and Wachtel, T., 2002. Restorative Justice Theory Validation (From Restorative Justice: Theoretical Foundations, P 110-142, 2002, Elmar GM Weitekamp, Hans-Jurgen Kerner, eds.,--See NCJ-199553). 3-30

Ahmed, E. and Braithwaite, J., 2005. Forgiveness, shaming, shame, and bullying. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 38(3), pp.298-323.

Braithwaite, J., Ahmed, E. and Braithwaite, V., 2006. Shame, restorative justice, and crime. Taking stock: The status of criminological theory, 15, pp.397-417.

Bazemore, G. and Schiff, M., 2015. Restorative community justice: Repairing harm and transforming communities. Routledge. P. 63-84