Retounen nan ISE IV English (UK) – Interactive task

Restorative Justice for Serious Harm

angle senaryo pale

Libby

A bright British English speaker with an approachable, conversational tone.

32 years · female

Practise talking about "Restorative Justice for Serious Harm" with Libby, your AI speaking avatar. Speak out loud, get instant feedback, and build confidence for your ISE IV English – Interactive task speaking exam.

Start free AI practice

Konvèsasyon

I am going to give you a situation. A justice system is considering wider use of restorative meetings after serious offences. You need to ask questions and then tell me what you think should happen. What do you need to know first?

Bon repons:

I would need to know where the power sits before giving a view. In this case, a justice system is considering wider use of restorative meetings after serious offences. I would ask who benefits immediately, who bears the risk if the judgement is wrong, and whether affected people can appeal or demand reasons. Without those answers, the proposal may sound efficient while concealing the risk of repair being offered without enough protection for those harmed.

The main options are offer restorative justice when victims choose it or reserve it for lower-level offences until evidence is stronger. What assumption behind these options would you challenge?

Bon repons:

I would be wary of the idea that offer restorative justice when victims choose it and reserve it for lower-level offences until evidence is stronger are the only realistic moral choices. They may be useful starting points, but the real decision may require a narrower pilot, a stronger appeal route or a different definition of success. Otherwise we may choose between two polished versions of the same blind spot.

Suppose someone says your approach is too cautious and that urgent action is needed. How would you respond?

Bon repons:

My response would be that urgent action still needs limits. I would allow action where the current harm is clear, but I would limit scale, publish reasons and set a review date. That responds to pressure without pretending the risk has disappeared, especially when the policy could lead to the risk of repair being offered without enough protection for those harmed.

What long-term consequence worries you most if this decision is handled badly?

Bon repons:

The long-term risk that worries me most is institutional habit. Once organisations build procedures around a decision, reversing it becomes expensive, embarrassing and politically difficult. In restorative justice for serious harm, the risk of repair being offered without enough protection for those harmed could start to feel normal rather than exceptional, which is more damaging than a single poor decision.

Where should responsibility sit: individuals, institutions, markets or government?

Bon repons:

The public may have a stake, but institutions need explicit duties. Government should set enforceable limits, institutions should explain and monitor decisions, and private actors should not profit from risks they do not carry. Individuals need voice, but voice is not a substitute for power or an appeal mechanism. For restorative justice for serious harm, that qualification keeps the answer tied to the actual case.

After hearing the objections, what final position would you take?

Bon repons:

I would take a staged position. I would not give a pure yes or no answer. I would allow the least irreversible action that addresses the immediate harm, but only with published reasons, independent review and a real route for people to challenge outcomes that affect them. For restorative justice for serious harm, that qualification keeps the answer tied to the actual case.