Abstract Masterafhandling 2018
v/ Dan Kühnau Hansen, hold 8
My personal motivation for writing this master thesis is a wish to contribute to the establishment of a new frame for the handling of cases where police students’ attitudes and behaviour are considered unsuitable for the job as a police officer. In my duty as a teacher at the Danish Police College I have experienced colleagues who have handled these cases in different ways and with a different opinion of what acceptable attitudes and good behaviour are and how the ‘decorum demand’ should be interpreted. I have also experienced that such a conflict with the students can lead to personal costs for both the students and the colleagues.
I believe that by achieving new knowledge and new tools, the handling of such cases will be more professional and consistent. I additionally presume that more knowledge within this field will also contribute to a feeling of being better prepared for the handling of these cases from the perspective of the teachers, and that the students will experience a more fair treatment during the process as a whole.
The purpose of my thesis is, therefore, to examine how these cases are handled by the teachers at the moment, how both parties the process of the cases and finally whether the reflective conflict resolution model developed by Professor Vibeke Vindeløv could be incorporated in a future handling process. My results are based on an analysis of interviews with three teachers and three students at the Police College. As basis material for my thesis, I have used the reflective model and more specifically conflict theory, among others the theory of process justice.
Based on my analysis, I can conclude that there is no general procedures or guidelines for how such cases should be handled and the teachers are left with a high degree of autonomy in connection with the handling of behaviour cases. The teachers generally express a lack of clear-cut definitions of how “good behaviour” should be understood, and it is up to the individual teacher to interpret whether a student does not live up to the required personal qualifications. The students on the other hand feel that the cases are indeed full of conflicts and they generally feel misunderstood by both the teacher and the system. Furthermore, they regard the development plans as somewhat random and in lack of transparency. Additionally, the students feel left alone in the process. Based on my study, it is clear that the handling of such cases can be improved in order to leave the students with an impression of a fair process.
I argue that knowledge of the reflective conflict resolution model and the fundamental values behind it is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. It is my belief that – based on the results from my examination – more knowledge of the tools is a good idea and that it might make sense to make ‘action cards’ for the use of conflict resolution in these cases. But in the long term something more drastic must be done. We have to examine the culture existing around the new and also the experienced teachers at the Police College. We have to focus more on teamwork and increase the general understanding of the fact that what has great importance in connection with conflict handling is the culture in which the teachers act every day.
The way forward is to create a more cooperating and problem solving culture, where supervision and open dialogue between colleagues, when such cases arise, is established as a norm. Additionally, I recommend a common understanding of what constitute ‘a good police officer’ and how the decorum demand should be interpreted. Only in this way we, as an organisation, can secure that students who are no longer to be part of the Danish police will feel, that they are treated fairly in connection with a dismissal process.
Resume Masterafhandling 2018
v/Olav Johansen, hold 8
Min tittel var “Partene er eksperter på egne liv, men jordskifterettens meklere er eksperter på eiendom – om faglighet i rettsmekling.”
Tanken er at det er utfordrende å være en rent tilretteleggende mekler når du som mekler både er eksperten på jussen og eksperten på det eiendomsfaglige. Du vet både noe om hva som er riktig og hva som er lurt – og den kunnskapen kan du ikke fjerne selv om du skal mekle.
Jeg intervjuet 11 rettsmeklere fra jordskifteretten om dette.
Poenget er at vi både har en utfordring hvis partene er på vei mot et resultat som bygger på helt feil rettslig forståelse og hvis partene ikke kommer til en optimal faglig løsning.
Det er lite i loven om hvordan meklinga faktisk skal foregå, og lovforarbeidene er fulle av selvmotsigelser.
Meklerne jeg har intervjuet mener at det både går an å styre for mye og for lite – og at begge deler kan bli galt. Jeg har lansert figuren “Meklingens landevei” som viser det trygge landet mellom grøftene som heter for mye og for lite styring. Jeg har sett på hvor jordskifterettens meklere mener at veien bør gå i forhold til dansk og norsk rettsmekling i de ordinære domstolene og forskjellig meklingsteori.
Jeg peker også på fordelene med å gjennomføre noe av meklinga på stedet.
Tanken min er at selv om oppgaven studerer noe så smalt som rettsmeklere i jordskifteretten, er temaet det stadig tilbakevendende om evaluerende kontra tilretteleggende mekling, så mye av den bør være interessant for andre meklere også.
Jeg har skrevet hele greia så lettlest og muntlig som jeg torde.
Oppgaven min vil bli lagt ut på Domstolenes nettsider innen så lenge, og det vil forhåpentligvis komme et oppslag i domstolenes fagblad “Rett på sak” der jeg blir intervjuet om oppgaven.