The biggest problem with progressive policies is that they fail to take into account human nature. Indeed it often feels as if progressives have never met any actual humans.

How does the Dialectical Left constantly get away with this? They promote policies that increase the supply of social problems because constant problems increase demand for the Therapeutic Bureacracy. The Bureacracy then crafts its own statistical justification for existing and continuously reproduces more Bureacracy to fix the rapidly expanding list of problems it causes through nonsensical methods. Social and Emotional Learning isn’t meant to be applied at scale. Like “Defund the Police” It privileges bullies under the guise of compassion and harms everybody else.

When my son was 11 a new boy at school decided to bully him. Every time they passed in the corridor this boy would punch my son in the stomach or push him. My son didn’t even know this boy’s name. My husband advised punching him back, I was more reticent. When my son came home the next day, he said that this time when the boy punched him he punched him back hard in the stomach. I said we supported him, but that there might be ‘consequences’ (bullies are alway squealers). On returning home the next day I asked my son if there had been any consquences, ‘yes’ he replied brightly ‘everytime he passed my in the corridor today he just walked by with his face turned away’. Restorative justice in action. Sometimes all you need to deal with a bully is to land a bigger punch in the guts.

Perhaps Giles needs to look further than schools for the breakdown of respect and look to the breakdown of families. Children do not spend enough time with their parents to learn respect for their elders and self respect. The result is today’s society. We need to stop relying on school to parent our children and take responsibility ourselves. How else can we expect our children to accept responsibility for their actions when so many if their role models relinquish their own responsibilities.
There are consequences to actions and it is an important lesson to learn, unfortunately so many parents want the little time they have to spend with their children to be quality time, they rarely hold their children accountable and much of the time, the bad behaviour is an attempt to gain the attention of their parents. We need to start recognising attention needing behaviours.

The purpose of punishment in the justice system is not simply to deter the individual concerned from reoffending but to deter others who might be tempted to offend.

Citing a small apparent reduction in the reoffending rate in those subject to restorative justice (which may not actually exist) does not take into account the deterrent effect on other potential offenders of punishment.

If instead of punishment offenders simply face being talked at.and a therapeutic process then the attractions of committing crime rather than desisting increases. For the most part offenders are likely to know the effects on their victims but don’t care.

But of course it provides lots of jobs for graduates and some victims who are often treated as irrelevant in the traditional system of justice might gain some increased psychological satisfaction at the expense of general deterrence being weakened.

Everyone believes in restorative justice in that agreeable window of time after they’ve been on the course and before they’ve been mugged.

Looking at the literature on restorative justice, it comes across as a classic example of the weakness of social science academic practice. Literally thousands of papers discussing the theory and the views of practioners/supporters (with tons of reviews, and reviews of reviews) and very very few good quality statistical papers evaluating whether it works.
The positive statistical papers that do exist tend to report a reduction of suspensions in school (which isn’t surprising since the punishment regime is changed when RJ is implemented), but limited observations of more useful measures, while several larger statistical papers showing no or negative outcomes from RJ programmes.
Academics in the subject seem to have an active interest in showing Restorative Justice works, so they end up creating narratives and arguments, instead of attempting the hard critiques, dissections and evaluations. The contrast would be with the hard sciences like physics, where if you verify something to a millionth place of accuracy, you are obliged to create an experiment to check the 2 millionth place, just in case.

Victims of bad behaviour should not have to explain how it made them feel to have been victimised. But this may be one of the consequences of a society in which the nature of harm is increasingly understood in subjective terms (hate speech etc.).

When I was in year 7 at secondary school some 20-21 years ago (just made myself feel old), I had the misfortune of being bullied by some thug in my year group for a few months. I was a fairly quiet and shy child so I mostly just took it until one day he decided to get physical and it didn’t go well for him. Needless to say, he left me alone after that and even better, moved school a few months later (to be clear, I am not taking credit for that). He bullied me for two reasons. Firstly, he could due to my temperament and that he knew he would get away with it. Secondly, because he liked it. As I say, this happened for a few months and in that time he didn’t get bored of tormenting and trying to embarrass me once. It was only when he came off worse and I realised I was stronger than I thought that he stopped. Often, the only way to deal with these people is to isolate them from their peers until they can be rehabilitated. Some fake apology with a meaningless handshake is going to solve nothing.

For what its worth, I heard through the grapevine later that he had a rubbish home life and that sort of thing, so I was naturally the proverbial punch bag that he could take his frustrations out on, and to feel superior no doubt. Not sure I forgive him, but I do pity him and appreciate I got off relatively lightly.

Though-revoking piece. Thank you. Also quite chilling in places. We have really lost our way on so many levels. Firstly, only God can truly forgive. We can hope to try, through him, but true forgiveness is beyond the most compassionate adult, and incomprehensible to a child. A child who has been deeply hurt can be forced to say the words, “I forgive” but they will harbour resentment if their feelings are suppressed. Similarly a child with sociopathic tendencies will, indeed, play the system like a game. They need real consequences, real repercussions, if they are to be trained out of bad behaviour. That does NOT mean physical harm – corporal punishment is a form of child abuse that undoubtedly gives pleasure to the sadistic perpetrators of it – but it does mean limiting a child’s freedom or treats, and helping them understand that good behaviour is rewarded and bad behaviour is not. I was recently verbally attacked on a train by two school children. I was horrified by their abusive words. When I tried to stand up for myself they started laughing and filming me. They were savage. They had no concept of right and wrong. We are failing our children. Something has to change.

I have been involved in RJ for approximately three years now; in the criminal justice system and in secondary schools. I was drawn to it as it seemed to be one way to give a voice to the victim. My training was very clear: it is not about forgiveness. There is a well known case of the parents of a young man, innocently involved in a pub fight, killed by a single blow to the head. The offender was given a prison term for manslaughter. Whilst in prison, the parents of the dead young man wanted to try and understand what happened and why the offender, who pleaded guilty and expressed remorse, got involved in the fight. Both parties agreed to the RJ process. This agreement is critical and at the foundation of RJ. Nothing is forced, nobody should be coerced or feel they are. The process is explained to people and it is then up to them whether it proceeds or not. If one party does not agree, it does not go forward: no pressure to either party should ever be applied. The parents of the young man were clear both before and after the process; they were not seeking to forgive the offender. They wanted to try and understand what happened and why. They were pleased that the offender had turned his life around, but could not forgive him for what he did. And this was acceptable to the offender, he wasn’t looking for forgiveness. I have sat in on a case where a victim wanted his attacker (a violent assault 25 years ago) to know what the affect of his actions towards him were. The victim, when the trial was over and the police had got their man, was completely forgotten. RJ provided an opportunity for him to be heard. For the offender, it was important for him to offer some sort of explanation. No excuse, but some attempt at the ‘why’ and an opportunity to apologise face to face.
             Within schools things are not so clear cut. Often it is hard to work out who is the victim and who is the offender. The emotional maturity needed to take on the restoration of broken relationships is frequently not there. When it does work, it’s great, but in my experience it is a bit hit and miss. Add into a conflict between two students the friendship groups, family members’ involvement, social media, and it gets very complicated. To hear of this being carried out in primary schools is alarming. By all means get the bullies to see the consequences of what they do, but at the same time there needs to be punitive consequences. What can be helpful, even if things aren’t resolved, is the opportunity for the students to have a genuinely independent individual listen to them.
             I worked in Victim Support in London many yeas ago and it was a simple thing: people wanted to talk about what they had been through. RJ, for all the idealistic hyperbole surrounding it, is really a fairly simple, practical process. Unfortunately, the Coventry Cathedral example and the slavery-legacy debate drag it down a path it shouldn’t be going: it should be between people who are alive and willing to talk. It should not be seen as an alternative to punishment.

In less than two decades we have gone from schools basically tolerating bullying, to a zero tolerance approach, back to tolerance. Such is the state of things in a corroding nation-state.

The author cites the symbolic statue being vandalised outside Coventry Cathedral as an example where RJ works, but in reality there’s no individual victim here – our communal sense of violation perhaps, but no-one forced into a demeaning act of forgiveness they mightn’t feel inclined to participate in.
Also telling is the example he cites of those required to oversee this process, imposed from above, and how their lack of experience in doing so leaves them exposed to unhealthy feelings, whilst the perpetrators may well be smirking their way to the next victim. This has parallels with the current moral compunction of “compelled speech” where no effective choice is made available other than conformity.
My overall impression is that the author himself feels deeply conflicted. I think this provides a deep dive into his psyche, and if this is indeed the case, i hope he’s able to find peace.

Despite the title, there doesn’t seem to be much discussion of the concept of justice in the piece.

RJ seems to be a process of moving on from an incident which may, in some cases, be more effective than retribution. A laudable aim but is justice done in a process which requires the victim to do most of the heavy lifting? Reliving and forgiving seem rather more difficult than apologising.

Isn’t some level of retribution inherent in the word justice for it to mean anything?

Can’t help but notice Foucault comes up, as he does so often in discussions about substantive changes to the foundations of morality.

Crime requires punishment. Spank them so hard, their grandchildren will feel warm sitting down!

This article takes us deep into the psyche of its author, who’s written many articles for Unherd with which i’ve disagreed. It seems there is a limit to the principles which his Christian faith would have him follow, in terms of of forgiveness.
He gets it pretty much right in his exposition of how the perpetrators of acts which violate others might smirk their way through the RJ process, whilst at the same time requiring the violated to revisit the act in a way which may well demean them.
He also delves into the wider issue of why this type of process is now happening, suggesting convenience and/or cost savings. I think he gets that right too, but there’s a wider factor which i’ll come to.
It should be said that the example he quotes – of the violation of a symbolic statue at Coventry Cathedral – violates us all as a community but not just one individual, and there’s the rub. It’s of a different order of forgiveness, with no ‘victim’ as such.
For me, the most telling point concerns those overseeing this process. They too, may find themselves feeling a sense of violation along with the victim, and equally unable to speak out or exclude themselves from the process which is being ordained from outside. This has so many parallels with current issues such as ‘compelled speech’ that the process belongs in the same category. This is the wider implication; a signifier of the mores of a society that’s lost confidence in itself.
His personal experience of frequent canings at school is included, and one almost gets the impression he’s been waiting for an opportunity to offload this. He cites this in terms of authoritarian actions and “consequences” as if to say he didn’t deserve the consequences – “blood in his underpants” – of what were presumably very minor childhood misdemeanours, therefore he’d generally be in favour of the principle of RJ. What emerges from all this is a sense that he’s genuinely conflicted. It’s as if one instinct is telling him one thing, and another is telling him something very different. It certainly explains a good deal, and I genuinely hope he finds peace.
Edit: just to add, this comment didn’t appear when first posted, so i wrote another one containing many of the same points. Apologies to those reading them twice; the fault lies with Unherd.

There is a fantastic opportunity for CofE schools here. They should oblige all their schools to enforce strict discipline, teach a traditional and challenging curriculum, forgo any trendy, woke initiatives and insist on weekly collective worship. There schools would be tremendously popular and they could fill up their pews on a Sunday if they re-introduced church attendance as part of the criteria for a place in their schools.
All it needs is a courageous, orthodox and traditionally-minded Archbishop of Canterbury. One who is less interested in winning plaudits from the liberals and more interested in spreading the Word.
Oh well! It’s a nice dream.

Some will never acknowledge their sin and have to learn the hard way if at all. Justice is important if we are to protect the people of this nation. What is the purpose of having the law if we can wheedle out of it through those who think they are doing a good job getting us to repent. Both sides are needed not just one or the other. Letting people go scott free to repeat their crimes without consequences is very dangerous for our nation and is a sin against the law abiding majority actually.

“…forgiveness is the guiding spirit behind RJ. And when it happens properly, it is a beautiful thing. But it has to be carefully handled, and a healthy degree of scepticism is imperative.”
RJ is like Bloom’s Taxonomy – educators think they know all about it but have only a cursory understanding. Unlike Blooms less damage is done when one isn’t trained to apply it.
My son, a teacher, was verbally threatened by his nine year old student. (I’m going to hit you in the head and watch you bleed, stab your eyes out and cut out your tongue) Graphic stuff. The student wasn’t suspended (even in school) but was sent back to the class to “apologize”. My son saw the child’s smirk and quick “sorry” and told the child he wouldn’t accept his apology – that would require a change in behaviour. The admin wasn’t happy – the acceptance of the apology was expected. Although this wasn’t restorative justice (or perhaps it was the admin’s understanding of it) the lack of real consequences often lets the perpetrator off the hook. Even if RJ was done properly is it the right approach? My son was actually shaken by the vitriol this student spewed at him. Should he have to share, with this student, that his words were frightening? Is this a troubled child or a sick one?
Consequences don’t need to be severe only consistent. And understood by all. Put rules and consequences in place and follow through. Do what you say you will do.
My friend who is a Principal, recently took over a school where students were rude and aggressive to the teachers. Every day. Why? Because they only had to apologize. When she instituted proper consequences – contacting parents, suspension) with proper reintroduction back into the class, the incidents virtually stopped. While there may be a child with severe mental health or social issues, the majority just need admin/teachers with a backbone (to quote Barbara Coloroso).
I think RJ can work at a whole class/whole school level as a preemptive measure to help create a positive classroom environment – sharing small injustices and resolving them to create a positive place to learn. But for bigger issues – intimidation, relentless bullying, violence – everyone needs consequences. The perpetrator for sure, but the victim perhaps even more so.

Interesting. On the one hand we have a trend towards authoritarianism sweeping some countries, and on the other we have the pursuit of a less brutal, more humanitarian form of society. And occasionally they co-exist, albeit somewhat uneasily. What we, at least in England, haven’t worked out is what the true nature of Man is, and therefore whether we should side with the notion that Man is fundamentally good and can always be recovered from the path of any evil he may have done, or whether Man is fundamentally inclined to evil and deserves whatever punishment is bestowed upon him.
There are, of course, any number of middle arguments about the nature of individuals, and the need to treat Mankind as a collection of individuals, all to be assessed accordingly before any decision is made. That is an ideal, and like all ideals it runs sooner rather than later into the buffers – ideals just don’t work precisely because the possible number of permutations in judging whole populations and deciding what to do with them is impossibly large and unwieldy. Justice, particularly if implying “fairness”, has to be a coherent system, or not exist at all.
We have always been perilously close to the blatantly unjust, whether it was the tribal elders, the feudal lords or a more formalised “universal” system of trial and punishment. And we’ve seen in other societies what the pretence of justice looks like. We wondered how on earth those behind the Iron Curtain coped, and the same is true again of the Chinese (never mind the North Korean population). What we’ve never agreed upon is the nature of a population (of individuals) and whether it is best lead by brute, uncaring force and discipline or the quasi-religious hopes of an idealistic, caring leadership, prey as it must be to those who can’t or won’t conform.

If I had committed a serious crime against someone else I would want to be punished in some way. What is worse than unexpiated guilt? There is a moral demand for punishment where it is appropriate.

Given that our prisons are academies of drug dealing skills and access, and IT fraud/scam, it is positively insane to imprison first/ non violent offenders so as to ensure that, upon release, crime is the easiest form of living for them? In days of yore, I saw recruit Guardsmen with ‘ previous’ turned into model citizens via our training. It works.

There is a simple way to test how genuine contrition is: the bully agrees to do one reasonable thing (not humiliating, not dangerous, not inflicting harm on a third person) that the victim asks him or her to do.

Can you correlate the rise in violence against teachers with the growth of RJ? That’s the implication but I don’t see any proof

This is a fascinating topic and by no means confined to advice on using this or that form of pop psychology to inform institutional policies on bullying, public policy on bullying in prisons or any other institution.
Like some of those whose comments appear, I was relentlessly, implacably bullied in both elementary school and high school–psychologically, not physically. I did think of explaining to the bullies that they were indulging blatantly in evil, but I never did, because I could detect in them not the slightest in either good or evil. The teachers ignored what was going on. My parents didn’t know what was going on, because I never told them. Years later, I learned that bullies usually have their own crosses to bear. But I didn’t care. Still later, however, I wondered what I’d say if I were ever to meet any of them on the street or at a class reunion. I found the address of one and wrote to her but without resorting to moral instruction, let alone virtue signaling. I simply said that despite the hard times of decades earlier, I had gotten over it, grown up and made a good life for myself. I didn’t ask for an apology or even an explanation. And, as I expected, she offered neither. She never replied at all. But here’s the thing. Our school had been a Jewish one. Our teachers didn’t dwell morbidly on the Nazis but nonetheless referred to them in the larger context of Jewish history (which is by no means entirely tragic). The parents or grandparents of many students, including some of the bullies, had survived death camps in Europe. And yet some of these parents had not managed to teach their own children the value of kindness–that is, the Golden Rule.
The author of this article refers to the inscription at Coventry Cathedral: “Father forgive.” Speaking from the cross in those very words, Jesus asked God (the Father) to forgive the executioners. That makes sense theologically. But how would that approach apply to anyone visiting or worshipping in this cathedral? Should they forgive the Nazis? Could they? The answers to these questions are somewhat ambiguous. With them in mind, I highly recommend a book that I read many years ago (before this second edition): Simon Wiesenthal, The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness (New York: Schocken Books, 1998). Here’s the blurb from Amazon.
You are a prisoner in a concentration camp. A dying Nazi soldier asks for your forgiveness. What would you do? While imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp, Simon Wiesenthal was taken one day from his work detail to the bedside of a dying member of the SS. Haunted by the crimes in which he had participated, the soldier wanted to confess to–and obtain absolution from–a Jew. Faced with the choice between compassion and justice, silence and truth, Wiesenthal said nothing. But even years after the way had ended, he wondered: Had he done the right thing? What would you have done in his place? In this important book, fifty-three distinguished men and women respond to Wiesenthal’s questions. They are theologians, political leaders, writers, jurists, psychiatrists, human rights activists, Holocaust survivors, and victims of attempted genocides in Bosnia, Cambodia, China and Tibet. Their responses, as varied as their experiences of the world, remind us that Wiesenthal’s questions are not limited to events of the past.
I can’t summarize the findings of those who responded to Wiesenthal (who later gained fame as an indefatigable Nazi hunter), because no two are alike except in the sense that they are all personal meditations that emerge from collective intuitions. Even those authors who agree that forgiveness would be the right (or wrong) thing to do, don’t do so for the same reasons. One author says that he would be able and perhaps willing to forgive what he himself has suffered at the hands of this officer but is neither able nor willing to forgive what the officer has done to countless others.
I think that forgiveness–by which I mean reconciliation–is not only a beautiful ideal but also a practical possibility in some circumstances. Perps must ask their victims to forgive them, for instance, and the request must be sincere, not perfunctory. Victims, moreover, must actually want to get past the temptation of rage. I doubt that many people–children, to be sure, but also adults–are ready for any of this. Therefore, I think that Fraser is correct in rejecting the manipulative, coercive and therefore immoral techniques of pop psychology. I could tell you all many, many stories about my experiences in therapy groups, which I found much more disturbing than the earlier ones of bullying. But I won’t, because almost every reader of UnHerd knows what I mean.

Kipling got it in one, as ever. “Bullies bully because they like bullying.” They need to be stopped, not given a chance to get a further buzz out of hearing from the victim how effective the bullying’s been.”