📘 Part 1: Starter, learning intentions & concepts (10–15 minutes)

Scenario: A 16‑year‑old student took a teacher’s laptop without permission and sold it online. The laptop was later recovered and returned to the teacher.

Learning intentions

Students will understand the key ideas of retributive and restorative justice and be able to compare their purposes, processes and outcomes. Students will evaluate which approach is appropriate in different real‑world cases.

Success criteria

By the end of the lesson you can: define both approaches concisely; complete a Venn diagram comparing them; justify a chosen approach for 3–4 case studies using evidence; take part in a role‑play or debate.

Concise explanations

Retributive justice focuses on punishment proportional to the offence. It aims to hold the offender accountable through sanctions (e.g. fines, imprisonment, school suspension) and affirms the rule of law.

Restorative justice focuses on repairing harm by involving victims, offenders, whānau and the community. It seeks apology, amends, and agreements to restore relationships and reduce future harm.

Teacher instructions (brief)

Time: 60 minutes. Start with the starter and pair discussion (5–10 mins). Explain concepts (5 mins). Students complete Venn diagram (10 mins). Case studies in small groups (20 mins) with role‑play/debate (15 mins). Finish with whole‑class reflection (5 mins). Provide diverse ability supports: sentence starters, key vocabulary list and extra time for drawing/notes.

📝 Part 2: Compare, apply, role‑play & reflect (40–50 minutes)

Research a New Zealand restorative justice programme (e.g. Family Group Conference, community restorative circle). Write a one‑paragraph summary of outcomes and one question for class discussion.

Suggested answers / teacher guide (concise)

Venn diagram (expected points)

Retributive: punishment, legal process, focus on rights of state/society, deterrence, proportional sanctions.

Restorative: victim‑centred, repairing harm, dialogue, accountability through amends, community involvement.

Similarities: both aim to address wrongdoing, can include consequences, seek to reduce re‑offending, involve some form of accountability.

Case study guidance (brief)

Case A (shop theft): restorative typically appropriate — victim compensated, offender apology, education/support for substance issues; stakeholders: shop owner, offender, whānau, counsellor. Retributive possible if repeated or organised crime.

Case B (bullying): restorative often effective to repair harm and change behaviour if safe for victim; stakeholders: victim, perpetrators, school, whānau. Retributive (suspension) may be needed where safety is at risk.

Case C (vandalism): mixed approach — restorative repair and community service plus possible sanction to deter organised vandalism; stakeholders: community centre managers, offenders, community representatives.

Case D (assault): restorative can mend relationships when both consent and safety allow (victim voice central); retributive needed if serious injury or legal obligation. Stakeholders: victims, offenders, families, police, restorative facilitator.

Higher‑order prompts (for teacher use): Ask students to evaluate long‑term effects on recidivism, social inclusion, and victims’ wellbeing; consider equity (who benefits), power imbalances, and cultural suitability (e.g. whānau involvement).

Assessment notes

Marks can assess clarity of definitions (2), quality of Venn diagram (3), justification for cases (3 each), participation in role‑play (2), final reflection evidence (3).