Reference no: EM131702954
Case Study 2: Jordan
Late on the night of August 13, police responded to reports of vandalism on a local golf course. Golf carts were stolen, then driven around the course, damaging some greens, flowerbeds and landscaping. The carts were then driven on a city street for a few miles, then abandoned in a vacant lot and set on fire. Police arrested three youths, all age 17. Jordan was one of the youths arrested. He and the other two youths were charged with possession of stolen property, theft of property and mischief to property. There was over $20,000 in damage.
Jordan has no prior record of any offenses. The district attorney referred Jordan to a Youth Justice Committee, who met with Jordan and golf course management. Both parties agreed to a restorative justice mediation process. (The other two youths that were charged in the same incident were dealt with in separate meetings.)
Evaluation Questions:
1) Who is the victim? Is there more than one?
- What is the background of the victim? Come up with a brief history.
- What are the victim's emotions?
- The victim has agreed to participate in the restorative justice process. Why do you think s/he agreed?
- What are the victim's expectations for the restorative justice process?
- What does the victim want to see happen to the offender?
2) Who is the offender?
- What is the background of the offender? Brainstorm a brief history.
- The offender has agreed to participate in the restorative justice process. Why do you think s/he agreed?
- What are the offender's emotions?
- What are the offender's expectations for the restorative justice process?
3) What was the harm done? Make a list of any obvious damages, but also include less obvious ones, such as loss of trust, a perception of lower security, etc.
4) Develop a resolution agreement. This is a list of things the offender agrees to do that everyone is satisfied is within the offender's ability to repair the harm done, and that satisfies the victims as far as possible. For example, the offender might be required to do community service, provide financial compensation, participate in mandatory counseling, or agree not to have any contact with a certain group. Make sure your resolution agreement is very specific, so that none of it can be misinterpreted.
Case Study 3: Dakota
On September 27, police responded to a call on the city's east side. 65-year-old Maria Rizutto was attacked by a young woman and her purse was taken from her. After investigating, police arrested Dakota, a 17-year-old female. Dakota has been arrested 3 times before on minor theft charges. She has no history of drug use, but does associate with people who are known drug users and dealers.
Evaluation Questions:
1) Who is the victim? Is there more than one?
- What is the background of the victim? Come up with a brief history.
- What are the victim's emotions?
- The victim has agreed to participate in the restorative justice process. Why do you think s/he agreed?
- What are the victim's expectations for the restorative justice process?
- What does the victim want to see happen to the offender?
2) Who is the offender?
- What is the background of the offender? Brainstorm a brief history.
- The offender has agreed to participate in the restorative justice process. Why do you think s/he agreed?
- What are the offender's emotions?
- What are the offender's expectations for the restorative justice process?
3) What was the harm done? Make a list of any obvious damages, but also include less obvious ones, such as loss of trust, a perception of lower security, etc.
4) Develop a resolution agreement. This is a list of things the offender agrees to do that everyone is satisfied is within the offender's ability to repair the harm done, and that satisfies the victims as far as possible. For example, the offender might be required to do community service, provide financial compensation, participate in mandatory counseling, or agree not to have any contact with a certain group. Make sure your resolution agreement is very specific, so that none of it can be misinterpreted.