I know, you've heard it all before and thinking here we go again - but read on.
Decisions in criminal court are made on the basis of ‘beyond reasonable doubt.’
Decisions in civil court or hearings are based around the ‘balance of probability.’
- People discussing or hearing the evidence were more satisfied than not.
In environments where challenging, aggressive, or violent behaviours may arise - whether in public or private sector workspaces - the decision to report an incident is subjective.
Individuals will know their personal thresholds for discomfort, fear, or the perceived threat when determining whether to escalate a situation to higher authorities.
Once that decision is made, the evidence presented must be evaluated with objectivity to ensure a fair and balanced understanding of the incident.
Every person brings their own experiences, biases, and thresholds for what constitutes unacceptable behaviours which can be influenced by.
- Personal history
- Cultural norms
- Context
- Relationship dynamics
This means that the decision to report is often deeply personal and can vary significantly from one individual to another.
Once an incident is reported, the evidence provided must be examined objectively to ensure that the decision-makers can accurately understand and assess the situation.
The following steps are important towards bridging the gap between the subjective nature of reporting and the need for objective evaluation.
- Detailed documentation
- Corroborating evidence
- Training
- Impartial review
While objectivity is crucial, it is equally important to approach each case with empathy and an understanding of the reporter's perspective.
The evidence presented must be evaluated objectively to ensure fairness, accuracy, and credibility.
This in turn will encourage more accurate and timely reporting of incidents.
When you see, hear or experience something that is not right, you must feel empowered to speak-up and report it.
To learn more – https://www.nvcawareness.co.uk/contact-us/
Comments