A consequence is proportionate when it scales with the harm done, whether it was intended and whether it has happened before, and when it aims to repair the damage and protect others instead of making an example. Set the scale in advance, apply it the same way to everyone, and never use food, water or medical care as the sanction, since that risks serious harm in a community with no outside safety net.
Part of Community Conflict Resolution
Matching a community’s response to the seriousness of an offence, and the problems that appear in the table in the parent article.
The Parent Article’s Scale
| Offence | Response |
|---|---|
| First-time minor dispute | Mediation, verbal agreement |
| Work avoidance | Private conversation, then public task assignment |
| Minor theft | Return the item plus community service hours |
| Major or repeated theft | Return plus restricted access to communal stores plus probation |
| Assault | Temporary separation plus mediation plus conditional return |
| Repeated violence | Exile, as a last resort |
The principle in the article is that disproportionate punishment destroys trust. The governance article adds that consequences should be swift, proportional, public and restorative where possible, and sets a ladder for violence: first offence, second offence, then an assembly decision; see Conflict Resolution. No durations or hour counts are given in either, and none is invented here.
Problems In the Table
Restricted access to communal stores. This could mean withholding food. In a community with no outside supply, reducing someone’s basic ration is a physical harm, can lead to theft to survive and can hit dependents. Restrict access to discretionary items (the right to take extra, a role handling stores, a tool) and leave basic food, water and medical care alone. The same applies to shelter.
Assault and mediation. Mediation lists criminal conduct and power imbalance as reasons mediation may be unsuitable. Treating assault with “temporary separation plus mediation” needs care: the victim must agree freely, the aggressor must acknowledge the harm, and mediation cannot replace the community’s own accountability. See Dealing with Violence and Violence and Reconciliation.
Public versus private. The governance article wants consequences public so the community sees violence has costs. This article’s parent says to avoid public spectacle because arguments about the incident make healing harder. Both can be met: announce the outcome and reasons, do not stage the shaming.
Factors To Weigh
- Harm done: injury, loss, danger to others.
- Intent: accident, carelessness or deliberate act.
- Repetition: a first event or a pattern.
- Ability to repair: a person who cannot repay in goods may repay in work.
- Vulnerability: harm to a child or sick person weighs more.
- Acknowledgement: a person who admits and makes amends warrants a lighter response than one who denies.
Method: Apply the Scale
Step 1: Establish the facts before deciding; see Council-Based Decision Making.
Step 2: Start with repair. What would put the harm right?
Step 3: Add protection only where others are at risk, such as separation or removal of a tool.
Step 4: Choose the mildest response that does the job, and record why.
Step 5: Review at a set date, so the sanction ends when its purpose is met; see Agreement Enforcement.
Common Mistakes
- Making an example. It breaks proportionality and damages trust.
- Punishing the poor harder. A fine means more to a person with less.
- Lifelong labels. After the sanction is done, the matter is closed.
- Exile as a first response.
Basic needs are not sanctions
Do not withhold food, drinking water, medical care or shelter as a consequence, and do not exile a person in conditions where they cannot survive. Exile is described in When Mediation Fails.
What’s Next
- Learn next: Preventing Violence — acting before consequences are needed
- Combine with: Post-Conflict Healing — repairing the relationship afterward