Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Just EmotionsRituals of Restorative Justice$

Meredith Rossner

Print publication date: 2013

Print ISBN-13: 9780199655045

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2014

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199655045.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: null; date: 30 March 2017

(p.161) Appendix 4 Key Questions from the RISE Observation Instrument

(p.161) Appendix 4 Key Questions from the RISE Observation Instrument

Source:
Just Emotions
Publisher:
Oxford University Press

Conference observers completed this instrument using eight-point scales:

  1. 1. How much support was the offender given during the conference?

  2. 2. How much reintegrative shaming was expressed?

  3. 3. How reintegrative was the conference for this offender?

  4. 4. How much approval of the offender as a person was expressed?

  5. 5. How much was the offender treated by their supporters as someone they love?

  6. 6. How much respect for the offender was expressed?

  7. 7. How much disapproval of the offender’s act was expressed?

  8. 8. How much stigmatizing shaming was expressed?

  9. 9. How much disappointment in the offender was expressed?

  10. 10. To what extent was the offender treated as a criminal?

  11. 11. How often were stigmatizing names and labels (eg, ‘criminal’, ‘punk’, ‘junkie’, or ‘bully’) used to describe the offender?

  12. 12. How much moral indignation did the victim party(s) express about the offender’s actions?

  13. 13. How much disapproval of the offender as a person was expressed?

  14. 14. To what extent did the offender accept that they had done wrong?

  15. 15. How sorry/remorseful was the offender for their actions?

  16. 16. When reaching the conference outcome, how severe was the offender on themselves?

  17. 17. Did the offender apologize? (yes/no)

  18. 18. If the offender apologized, what form did the apology take? (state number of times each type was expressed: verbal, handshake, hug, pat on shoulder, kiss, other)

  19. 19. To what extent was the offender forgiven for their actions?

  20. 20. How clearly was it communicated to the offender that they could put their actions behind them?

  21. 21. How much forgiveness of the offender was expressed?

  22. 22. If the offender was forgiven, what form did the forgiveness take? (state number of times each type was expressed: verbal, handshake, hug, pat on shoulder, kiss, other)

  23. 23. How much did the offender claim their actions were accidental or unintentional?

  24. (p.162) 24. To what extent did the offender hold others responsible for their actions?

  25. 25. How defiant (ie, cocky, bold, brashly confident) was the offender?

  26. 26. How sullen/unresponsive was the offender?

  27. 27. How emotionally powerful was the account given of the consequences of the offender’s act?

  28. 28. How emotionally responsive was the offender to the account given of the consequences of their act?

  29. 29. How much discussion of the consequences of the offender’s actions occurred?

  30. 30. How much discussion of the consequences (even if not realized) of this type of offence occurred?

  31. 31. How much did the offender contribute to the conference outcome?

  32. 32. How much was the offender coerced into accepting the conference outcome?

  33. 33. How much responsibility did the offender take for their actions?

  34. 34. How much did the offender retreat from, and avoid the attention of, others?

  35. 35. How much was the offender’s speech affected by irregularities, pauses, or incoherence?

  36. 36. How uncomfortable (eg, restless, anxious, fidgety) was the offender?

  37. 37. To what extent did the offender engage in hiding (eg, lowering head) and concealing (eg, hand covering parts of face, averting gaze) behaviour?

  38. 38. What percentage of the conference time was taken up by the offender talking?

  39. 39. How much did the offender contribute to the conference?

  40. 40. How much was the offender dominated?

  41. 41. How much moral lecturing was directed at the offender?

  42. 42. How clearly were the possible consequences of future offences communicated to the offender?

  43. 43. If the possible consequences of future offences were communicated to the offender, to what extent was this done in a non-threatening or matter-of-fact way?

  44. 44. How much was the offender harassed?

  45. 45. How often was the offender shouted at?

  46. 46. Overall, how emotionally engaged was the offender?

  47. 47. How much approval of the offender’s criminal actions was expressed?

  48. 48. At any stage of the conference, did the offender cry? (yes/no)

  49. 49. Was an outcome relating to this offender reached at the conference? (yes/no)

  50. 50. How much consensus was there among conference participants about the conference outcome for this offender?