Overview
Innovation in the justice sector is increasingly sought at community level involving Non Government Organisations (NGOs) and community organisations as well as government agencies. Through this unit you will understand this new environment and the importance of therapeutic jurisprudence and restorative justice as ways of understanding how justice is achieved. You will develop skills in human centred design and systems thinking that will enable you to operate in this inter-agency collaborative environment. Concepts such as social innovation will aid you in becoming a catalyst for change, in developing sustainable solutions to justice problems and participating in the changes the justice sector is undergoing.
Details
Pre-requisites or Co-requisites
There are no requisites for this unit.
Important note: Students enrolled in a subsequent unit who failed their pre-requisite unit, should drop the subsequent unit before the census date or within 10 working days of Fail grade notification. Students who do not drop the unit in this timeframe cannot later drop the unit without academic and financial liability. See details in the Assessment Policy and Procedure (Higher Education Coursework).
Offerings For Term 2 - 2020
Attendance Requirements
All on-campus students are expected to attend scheduled classes – in some units, these classes are identified as a mandatory (pass/fail) component and attendance is compulsory. International students, on a student visa, must maintain a full time study load and meet both attendance and academic progress requirements in each study period (satisfactory attendance for International students is defined as maintaining at least an 80% attendance record).
Recommended Student Time Commitment
Each 6-credit Undergraduate unit at CQUniversity requires an overall time commitment of an average of 12.5 hours of study per week, making a total of 150 hours for the unit.
Class Timetable
Assessment Overview
Assessment Grading
This is a graded unit: your overall grade will be calculated from the marks or grades for each assessment task, based on the relative weightings shown in the table above. You must obtain an overall mark for the unit of at least 50%, or an overall grade of ‘pass’ in order to pass the unit. If any ‘pass/fail’ tasks are shown in the table above they must also be completed successfully (‘pass’ grade). You must also meet any minimum mark requirements specified for a particular assessment task, as detailed in the ‘assessment task’ section (note that in some instances, the minimum mark for a task may be greater than 50%). Consult the University’s Grades and Results Policy for more details of interim results and final grades.
All University policies are available on the CQUniversity Policy site.
You may wish to view these policies:
- Grades and Results Policy
- Assessment Policy and Procedure (Higher Education Coursework)
- Review of Grade Procedure
- Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure
- Monitoring Academic Progress (MAP) Policy and Procedure – Domestic Students
- Monitoring Academic Progress (MAP) Policy and Procedure – International Students
- Student Refund and Credit Balance Policy and Procedure
- Student Feedback – Compliments and Complaints Policy and Procedure
- Information and Communications Technology Acceptable Use Policy and Procedure
This list is not an exhaustive list of all University policies. The full list of University policies are available on the CQUniversity Policy site.
- Apply the human centred design approach to justice issues and innovations
- Demonstrate the importance of theories of therapeutic jurisprudence and restorative justice in the contemporary justice field
- Develop an innovative response to a justice challenge
- Evaluate the public value generated by different community justice programs
- Identify opportunities for change in the justice system that are located at the community level.
No external accreditation is relevant to this award.
Alignment of Assessment Tasks to Learning Outcomes
Assessment Tasks | Learning Outcomes | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
1 - Case Study - 30% | |||||
2 - Presentation - 10% | |||||
3 - Learning logs / diaries / Journal / log books - 30% | |||||
4 - Report - 30% |
Alignment of Graduate Attributes to Learning Outcomes
Graduate Attributes | Learning Outcomes | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
1 - Communication | |||||
2 - Problem Solving | |||||
3 - Critical Thinking | |||||
4 - Information Literacy | |||||
5 - Team Work | |||||
6 - Information Technology Competence | |||||
7 - Cross Cultural Competence | |||||
8 - Ethical practice | |||||
9 - Social Innovation | |||||
10 - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultures |
Alignment of Assessment Tasks to Graduate Attributes
Assessment Tasks | Graduate Attributes | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
1 - Case Study - 30% | ||||||||||
2 - Presentation - 10% | ||||||||||
3 - Learning logs / diaries / Journal / log books - 30% | ||||||||||
4 - Report - 30% |
Textbooks
There are no required textbooks.
IT Resources
- CQUniversity Student Email
- Internet
- Unit Website (Moodle)
All submissions for this unit must use the referencing style: American Psychological Association 7th Edition (APA 7th edition)
For further information, see the Assessment Tasks.
m.suzuki@cqu.edu.au
Module/Topic
Introduction
Chapter
- Walgrave, L. Aertsen, I., Parmentier, S., Vanfraechem, I. & Zinsstag, E. (2013). Why restorative justice matters for criminology. Restorative Justice, 1(2), 159-167. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5235/20504721.1.2.159.
Events and Submissions/Topic
No events
Module/Topic
Restorative justice (1) - origin, concept, definition
Chapter
- Richards, K. (2005). Unlikely friends? Oprah Winfrey and restorative justice. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 38(3), 381-399. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1375/acri.38.3.381.
- Gavrielides, T. (2008). Restorative justice-The perplexing concept: Conceptual fault-lines and power battles within the restorative justice movement. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 8(2), 165-183. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748895808088993.
- Wood, W. R. & Suzuki, M. (2016). Four challenges in the future of restorative justice. Victims & Offenders, 11(1), 149-172. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15564886.2016.1145610.
Events and Submissions/Topic
No events
Module/Topic
Restorative justice (2) - principle, practice, theory
Chapter
-
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2020). Handbook on restorative justice programmes second edition (pp. 15-22, 23-48). https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/20-01146_Handbook_on_Restorative_Justice_Programmes.pdf.
- Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press (pp. 73-136). http://johnbraithwaite.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Restorative-Justice-and-Responsive-regulation-book.pdf.
Events and Submissions/Topic
No events
Module/Topic
Restorative justice (3) - empirical studies on offenders
Chapter
- Hayes, H. (2005). Assessing reoffending in restorative justice conferences. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 38(1), 77-101. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1375/acri.38.1.77.
- Wood, W. R. (2015). Why restorative justice will not reduce incarceration. British Journal of Criminology, 55(5), 883-900. https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/55/5/883/478399.
-
Maruna, S. (2016). Desistance and restorative justice: It’s now or never. Restorative Justice, 4(3), 289-301. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20504721.2016.1243853.
Events and Submissions/Topic
No events
Module/Topic
Restorative justice (4) - empirical studies on victims and other stakeholders
Chapter
- Braithwaite, J. (2002). Setting standards for restorative justice. British Journal of Restorative justice. 42(3), 563-577. https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/42/3/563/343049.
- Bolivar, D. (2010). Conceptualizing victims’ ‘restoration’ in restorative justice. International Review of Victimology, 17(3), 237-265. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/026975801001700301.
- Daly, K. (2006). The limits of restorative justice. In D. Sullivan & L. Tift (eds.) Handbook of restorative justice: A global perspective, Oxon: Routledge (pp. 134-146). https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/143870341.pdf.
Events and Submissions/Topic
No events
Module/Topic
No topic
Chapter
No chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
No events
Module/Topic
Restorative justice (5) - critical debates
Chapter
- Braithwaite, J. & Daly, K. (1994). Masculinities, violence and communitarian control. In T. Newburn & E. Stanko (eds.) Just boys doing business? Men, masculinities and crime. London: Routledge (pp. 189-213). http://johnbraithwaite.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Masculinities_Violence_1994.pdf.
- Suzuki, M. & Wood, W. R. (2018). Is restorative justice conferencing appropriate for youth offenders? Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18(4), 450-467. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748895817722188.
- Gavrielies, T. (2014). Bringing race relations into the restorative justice debate: An alternative and personalized vision of ‘the other’. Journal of Black Studies, 45(3), 216-246. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0021934714526042.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Assessment Item 1
Report. Due: Week 6 Friday (28 August 2020) 9:00 am AEST
Assessment Item 2
Presentation. Due: Week 6 Friday (28 August 2020) 9:00 am AEST
Presentation Due: Week 6 Friday (28 Aug 2020) 9:00 am AEST
Report Due: Week 6 Friday (28 Aug 2020) 9:00 am AEST
Module/Topic
Restorative justice (6) - current research trends
Chapter
- Shapland, J. (2014). Implications of growth: Challenges for restorative justice. International Review of Victimology, 20(1), 111-127. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0269758013510808.
- Saulnier, A. & Sivasbramaniam, D. (2015). Restorative justice: Underlying mechanisms and future directions. New Criminal Law Review, 18(4), 510-536. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/nclr.2015.18.4.510?seq=1.
- Hoyle, C. & Rosenblatt, F. (2016). Looking back to the future threats to the success of restorative justice in the United Kingdom. Victims & Offenders, 11(1), 30-49. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15564886.2015.1095830.
Events and Submissions/Topic
No events
Module/Topic
Restorative justice (7) - beyond criminal justice settings
Chapter
- Restorative practice in education: https://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/programs/bullystoppers/Pages/methodrestorative.aspx
- Restorative university: Victoria University of Wellington: https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/sog/researchcentres/chair-in-restorative-justice/research/restorative-university
- Restorative city: Newcastle: https://www.newcastle.edu.au/school/newcastle-law-school/initiatives/newcastle-as-a-restorative-city
- Restorative city: Canberra: https://law.anu.edu.au/news-and-events/news/could-canberra-become-restorative-city
- Restorative city: Whanganui: https://restorativepracticeswhanganui.co.nz/the-restorative-city/
Events and Submissions/Topic
No events
Module/Topic
Therapeutic jurisprudence (1) - concept, application
Chapter
- Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and therapeutic jurisprudence. Criminal Law Bulletin, 38(2), 244-262. https://www.anu.edu.au/fellows/jbraithwaite/_documents/Articles/Restorative_Justice_2002.pdf.
- Daly, K. & Marchetti, E. (2012). Innovative justice processes: Restorative justice, Indigenous justice, and therapeutic jurisprudence. In M. Marmo, W. de Lint & D. Palmer, Crime and justice: A guide to criminology. Pyrmont: LawBook (pp. 455-481). https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/234325/2012-Daly-and-Marchetti-Innovative-justice-processes-pre-print.pdf.
Events and Submissions/Topic
No events
Module/Topic
Therapeutic jurisprudence (2) - drug courts, mental health courts, family violence courts, Indigenous courts
Chapter
- Winick, B. J. (2003). Therapeutic jurisprudence and problem solving courts. Fordham Urban law Journal, 30(3), 1055-1103. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol30/iss3/4/.
- Rottman, D. B. (2000). Does effective therapeutic jurisprudence require specialized courts (and do specialized courts imply specialist judges)? Court Review, 37(1), 22-28. http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/publications/courtrv/cr37/cr37-1/CR9Rottman.pdf.
Events and Submissions/Topic
No events
Module/Topic
Community policing
Chapter
· Putt, J. (2011). Community policing in rural and remote Australia. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. https://aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/rpp111.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Assessment Item 3
Learning logs. Due: Week 11 Friday (2 October 2020) 9:00 am AEST
Learning Logs Due: Week 11 Friday (2 Oct 2020) 9:00 am AEST
Module/Topic
Review
Chapter
No reading
Events and Submissions/Topic
No events
Module/Topic
No topic
Chapter
No reading
Events and Submissions/Topic
Assessment Item 4
Case study. Due: Exam Week Friday (16 October 2020) 9:00 am AEST
Case STudy Due: Review/Exam Week Friday (16 Oct 2020) 9:00 am AEST
Module/Topic
No topic
Chapter
No reading
Events and Submissions/Topic
No events
1 Case Study
Students will complete a 1500-word case study examining a community justice program. They have to:
1. Identify an agency that works under the philosophy of community justice (e.g. neighbourhood justice centre, community policing initiative or local crime control project).
2. Briefly describe the work of the agency and describe the ‘philosophy’ upon which the agency bases its practices (e.g. restorative justice, therapeutic jurisprudence, community policing).
3. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of what this agency does in terms of community justice.
Review/Exam Week Friday (16 Oct 2020) 9:00 am AEST
Exam Week Friday (23 Oct 2020)
This assignment will be assessed by five criteria. The first is Introduction, in which students will be assessed by whether they will clearly outline their main arguments and signpost their supporting arguments in Introduction. The second is Description of agency, in which students will be assessed by whether they clearly describe the work and philosophy of the agency they focus on Case Study. The third is Analysis of the agency, in which students will be assessed by whether they relate the work of the agency to community justice practices, such as restorative justice, therapeutic jurisprudence, and community policing. The fourth is Conclusion, in which students will be assessed by whether they clearly summarise their main arguments in Conclusion. The fifth is Clarity of expression and referencing, in which students will be assessed by whether their writing structure is logical and adheres to the format including referencing.
- Demonstrate the importance of theories of therapeutic jurisprudence and restorative justice in the contemporary justice field
- Evaluate the public value generated by different community justice programs
- Critical Thinking
- Cross Cultural Competence
- Ethical practice
- Social Innovation
2 Presentation
Alongside Report, students will create a 3-minute video of their spoken presentation of the pitch for funding a small restorative justice initiative. The video should be a summary of your report including:
· A hypothetical crime problem
· What restorative justice is
· How you apply restorative justice to the problem
· Why restorative justice is effective
Week 6 Friday (28 Aug 2020) 9:00 am AEST
Week 8 Friday (11 Sept 2020)
This assignment will be assessed by five criteria. The first is Introduction, in which students will be assessed by whether they present their key points at the beginning of their presentation. The second is Knowledge of content, in which students will be assessed by whether they have a thorough knowledge of the content as demonstrated by their handling of research of the presentation topic. Thir third is Organisation of presentation, in which students will be assessed by whether they present information and ideas in a logical and interesting sequence, which the audience can easily follow. The fourth is Visual aids, in which students will be assessed by whether their use of visual aids effectively support and add impact to the presentation. The fifth is Conclusion, in which students will be assessed by whether they have clear and concise summary with effective links to the introduction and body of the presentation.
- Apply the human centred design approach to justice issues and innovations
- Problem Solving
- Critical Thinking
- Cross Cultural Competence
- Social Innovation
3 Learning logs / diaries / Journal / log books
Students are provided with a task to complete in Modules 2-11 the study guide. These short tasks make up the learning logs, and there are 10 tasks in total. Each task is relevant to that week’s particular topic and will develop your knowledge and reflections in relation to community justice. Word length per task is 100 words (+/- 10%). There are 10 tasks to complete (total 1,000 words). Responses must be written as complete sentences except where tables or bullet points are appropriate.
Week 11 Friday (2 Oct 2020) 9:00 am AEST
Review/Exam Week Friday (16 Oct 2020)
This assignment will be assessed by three criteria. The first is Level of reflection, in which students will be assessed whether they describe a number of events and reflects critically on them in a deep and significant way. The second is Presentation, communication & evidence, in which students will be assessed by whether their writing has excellent individual and overall structure, which leads to clear narrative and sub-narratives. The third is Completeness, in which students will be assessed by whether they have concrete connections between logs entries into a whole, demonstrating clear steps in the developmental learning process.
- Apply the human centred design approach to justice issues and innovations
- Demonstrate the importance of theories of therapeutic jurisprudence and restorative justice in the contemporary justice field
- Identify opportunities for change in the justice system that are located at the community level.
- Problem Solving
- Critical Thinking
- Cross Cultural Competence
- Ethical practice
- Social Innovation
4 Report
Students will prepare a 1000-word report, which involves a pitch for funding a small restorative justice initiative. They have to:
· Set out (1) a hypothetical crime problem that you are going to address in the neighbourhood justice initiative (e.g., theft of vehicles in the community) and (2) a target funding agency (e.g., government, philanthropic foundation)
· Explain what restorative justice is
· Describe how you apply restorative justice to the problem
· Discuss why restorative justice is an effective mechanism to address the problem.
Note: I have also revised the assessment instruction that is uploaded on Moodle.
Week 6 Friday (28 Aug 2020) 9:00 am AEST
Week 8 Friday (11 Sept 2020)
This assignment will be assessed by four criteria. The first is Introduction and conclusion, in which students will be assessed by whether they clearly describe their main argument in Introduction and draw major themes together in Conclusion. The second is Description of restorative justice, in which students will be assessed by whether they demonstrate a clear understanding of restorative justice. The third is Application and discussion of restorative justice, in which students will be assessed by whether they have excellent and original illustrations of the application of restorative justice with evidence. The fourth is Clarity of expression and referencing, in which students will be assessed by whether they have a logical structure and adhere to the format including referencing.
- Develop an innovative response to a justice challenge
- Evaluate the public value generated by different community justice programs
- Identify opportunities for change in the justice system that are located at the community level.
- Problem Solving
- Critical Thinking
- Information Literacy
- Team Work
- Cross Cultural Competence
- Ethical practice
- Social Innovation
As a CQUniversity student you are expected to act honestly in all aspects of your academic work.
Any assessable work undertaken or submitted for review or assessment must be your own work. Assessable work is any type of work you do to meet the assessment requirements in the unit, including draft work submitted for review and feedback and final work to be assessed.
When you use the ideas, words or data of others in your assessment, you must thoroughly and clearly acknowledge the source of this information by using the correct referencing style for your unit. Using others’ work without proper acknowledgement may be considered a form of intellectual dishonesty.
Participating honestly, respectfully, responsibly, and fairly in your university study ensures the CQUniversity qualification you earn will be valued as a true indication of your individual academic achievement and will continue to receive the respect and recognition it deserves.
As a student, you are responsible for reading and following CQUniversity’s policies, including the Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure. This policy sets out CQUniversity’s expectations of you to act with integrity, examples of academic integrity breaches to avoid, the processes used to address alleged breaches of academic integrity, and potential penalties.
What is a breach of academic integrity?
A breach of academic integrity includes but is not limited to plagiarism, self-plagiarism, collusion, cheating, contract cheating, and academic misconduct. The Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure defines what these terms mean and gives examples.
Why is academic integrity important?
A breach of academic integrity may result in one or more penalties, including suspension or even expulsion from the University. It can also have negative implications for student visas and future enrolment at CQUniversity or elsewhere. Students who engage in contract cheating also risk being blackmailed by contract cheating services.
Where can I get assistance?
For academic advice and guidance, the Academic Learning Centre (ALC) can support you in becoming confident in completing assessments with integrity and of high standard.