Debate contribution: Adult Restorative Justice
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 1 December 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Adult Restorative Justice
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5269148
Read the official Assembly record
Text
There is a wide range of benefits linked to the delivery of restorative justice. First, it is a victim-centred approach that allows the perpetrator to be held directly to account. Important questions can be asked, and the impact of the harm that has occurred to the victim can be shared with the perpetrator, and that can be a transformational experience on both sides. Victims can also witness direct accountability from the perpetrator and influence how the harm will be repaired, and, very often, that feels like a better process than one in which they may feel that the process has moved beyond their control or that they are a bit player in the justice system, and we will all be familiar with that complaint. Out-of-court disposals for suitable cases can reduce the victim's involvement in very lengthy and stressful court proceedings. It also better allows the perpetrators to understand how their actions have affected their victim, their community, themselves and those closest to them. The perpetrators also often appreciate the opportunity to meet their victim to actively participate, express remorse and try to make things right. It can help them to identify what they need to do to avoid further offending and get the support to do so. Our research shows that perpetrators generally have positive attitudes towards the police and law enforcement when they do a restorative justice intervention. Where the police are seen as the facilitators of justice and not just the enforcers, it can strengthen the relationships between the police and the community.
256 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.78).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.78 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.92 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.04 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:03 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.