Justice Perspectives

Overview

Students explore four justice lenses (procedural, retributive, restorative, social) applied to a real-world case involving a New Zealand citizen overseas. They then compare how these perspectives might shape New Zealand embassy actions, and practise interpreting “thoughts” expressed through evidence.

Learning intentions

• WALT interpret different perspectives in an historical (and current public) event of significance to New Zealanders by linking reasons to actions.
• WALT distinguish procedural, retributive, restorative and social justice and explain what each prioritises.
• WALT evaluate how New Zealand embassy actions could be understood differently depending on a person’s perspective.
• WALT communicate interpretations using relevant evidence from a short case summary.

Success criteria

• I can correctly define and identify procedural, retributive, restorative and social justice in a scenario.
• I can explain how at least two different perspectives lead to different views about what the New Zealand embassy should do.
• I can support my interpretations with evidence from the case (not just opinions).
• I can show why perspectives differ by referring to people’s beliefs, values and goals.

Curriculum links

• AS91232: Interpret different perspectives of people in an historical event that is of significance to New Zealanders (focus on reasons and related actions, supported by evidence).
• NZC Social Sciences: developing inquiry and critical thinking about how people interpret events and take action.

Lesson structure (20 minutes)

1. 0–3 min · Hook (case prompt). Teacher displays a short, pre-printed case summary: “First OE turns into Thai prison ordeal for 18-year-old Kiwi.” Teacher asks: “What would you expect the embassy to do, and why?”

• Students do a quick silent write: “My first expectation is… because…”

2. 3–7 min · Mini-teach (four justice lenses). Teacher introduces four justice types with one clear “what it cares about” line each:

• Procedural justice: fair process, correct rules, consistent treatment
• Retributive justice: accountability through punishment
• Restorative justice: repair harm, acknowledge impact, support reintegration
• Social justice: reduce unequal impacts; protect rights and dignity broadly
• Students match each lens to a sentence starter on their worksheet (e.g., “From a procedural justice view, the embassy should…”).

3. 7–12 min · Guided interpretation (perspective sorting). Teacher provides a small set of “perspective cards” (e.g., the detainee/family member, legal system observers, a government/consular staff member, a community advocate). Teacher tells students to choose two perspectives and complete a two-column table:

• Perspective → reasons/beliefs → what action they would support.
• Students work in pairs, using the case summary evidence to fill “reasons” (not just “actions”).

4. 12–17 min · Lens-to-action reasoning (thoughts + embassy actions). Teacher asks one focus question: “How might ‘thoughts’ about fairness, responsibility, repair and equality shape what the New Zealand embassy does?”

• Students complete a “Justice Lens Brain” diagram with four short claims, each linking lens → embassy action → reason.

5. 17–20 min · Share + exit ticket. Teacher calls for two volunteers to share one claim; class identifies which lens is being used and whether the evidence is specific.

• Students submit a 3-sentence exit ticket:

1. Identify two lenses used today.
2. Give one embassy action that each lens would support.
3. Explain why the perspectives differ (reasons).

Resources

• Printed case summary handout of the Stuff article (teacher-prepared, no links)
• Justice lens definition strip (procedural/retributive/restorative/social)
• Perspective cards (4–6 short cards with roles)
• Worksheet: two-column “Perspective → Reasons → Action”
• Justice Lens Brain graphic organiser (4 quadrants)
• Exit ticket slips or LMS form (teacher-created)
• Timer and projector/board

Assessment

• Formative: teacher checks pairs during the guided interpretation step for accurate lens definitions and evidence use.
• Formative: teacher listens during share-outs to see if students connect reasons to actions (not just describe events).
• Summative-in-class (quick): exit ticket aligned to AS91232 (interpreting different perspectives with evidence and explanation of why they differ).

Differentiation

• Support: provide sentence starters for each justice lens (“This suggests procedural justice because…”; “From a social justice view…”).
• Support: give a partially filled table for one perspective example (modelled by teacher) so students only complete the second perspective.
• Extension: challenge students to include a counter-perspective (“A different lens would argue…”) and reference a specific piece of case evidence to address the challenge.
• EAL/SEN: allow students to respond with bullet points; provide a word bank for beliefs/values (e.g., fairness, accountability, harm, rights, inequality, process).

Note for the teacher (case framing)

Use the case summary to keep the “historical event significance to New Zealanders” requirement appropriate for students: this is a publicly reported incident involving a New Zealand citizen abroad and public scrutiny of consular support. Ensure you frame student work as “interpreting perspectives” rather than judging facts beyond what is in the prepared summary.