Retributive Justice vs. Restorative Justice

Rooted in our civilization, restorative justice was once viewed as a sin against a sovereign society of a King, Queen, or Emperor. Albert Eglash (1975) first articulated restorative justice over retributive and rehabilitative justice, an indeed search for the original status of security of the victim’s feelings. Restorative Justice, a more victim-centered aspect of punishment than the offender, however, the victim should consider, what it is that restorative justice will restore to its original state of security, and would it be enough justice that the victim seeks.

This essay will critically analyse and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of retributivism. Throughout history the term “retributivism” has had a diverse though correlated meanings. The most significant meaning of retributivism is righting or rebalancing the scale of justice, through the use of mechanisms such as punishment e.g. punishing criminals in order to achieve justice for the offence they have committed. Retributivism also looks back at the offence, since the offender has committed a wrongful offence which needs to be punished. One of the core reasons why offenders should be punished is that they need to ‘pay back’ for the offence they have committed; the theory that is associated with retributivism is the just deserts theory. A theory is a concept that is based upon a hypothesis that can be supported with evidence. The just desert theory is used to justify retributivism punishment. Unlike other theories of punishment that mainly concentrates on preventing future crime, such as rehabilitation, deterrence and reductivism. The retributivist theory primarily concentrates on punishing past crimes. Although others would disagree with this for the reason that they think punishment should be used to ‘reduce’ and ‘prevent future crimes’ (Carlsmith et al., 2002 p284). The essay will take into account the views of various theories; theorist and philosophers so that the strengths and weaknesses of

Restorative justice is defined as “using humanistic, no punitive strategies to right wrongs and restore social harmony” (Siegel, 2008, p. 189). Instead of imposing harsh penalties on offenders like long prison sentences or even the death penalty, restorative justice calls for a more rehabilitative approach, such as reconciliation and offender assistance.

Retributivism is used in contrast with utilitarianism in such that it is used in theory about a legitimate end served by the penal institutions. Chapter 3 of our book (Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice) spoke of retributive justice. The most widely embraced mixed theory holds that punishment must achieve both the utilitarian goal of crime prevention and the retributive

Today more than thirty states either have Restorative Justice principles in their mission statements and policy plans or their lawmaking committee.(Armour) Restorative Justice considers those directly affected by an offender’s actions and those

Our current system of law and justice is oriented completely to the offender. “Restorative” justice is a term used to describe a number of programs that seek to do…what? What is “Restorative” justice and how may it work? Pg 67

The criminal justice system is a set of agencies and processes established by governments to control crime and impose penalties on those who violate laws. Different jurisdictions have diverse laws, agencies, and ways of managing criminal justice processes. In recent years, it has been debated that the criminal justice system has two primary and possibility conflicting perspectives known as the retributive justice approach and the restorative justice approach. Retributive justice and restorative justice have contrasting approaches when imposing punishment, that will be explored within this research paper, in regards to the disadvantages and potential advantages resulting from the implementation of it’s polices within the criminal justice system. These two perspectives have been implemented amongst many different criminal justice systems internationally, however the questions still remain, what is justice? And how should justice be served? This debate has created a divide between countries, due to the differing interpretations of justice and it’s response to criminal activity. The statistical information has been extracted from various online sources listed within the references as well as primary and secondary sources, “Prisons” by Haley, James and “Alternatives to Prisons” by Jennifer Skancke.

The criminal justice system views any crime as a crime committed against the state and places much emphasis on retribution and paying back to the community, through time, fines or community work. Historically punishment has been a very public affair, which was once a key aspect of the punishment process, through the use of the stocks, dunking chair, pillory, and hangman’s noose, although in today’s society punishment has become a lot more private (Newburn, 2007). However it has been argued that although the debt against the state has been paid, the victim of the crime has been left with no legal input to seek adequate retribution from the offender, leaving the victim perhaps feeling unsatisfied with the criminal justice process.

With the rise of Civil Rights Movement in western countries, the circumstances of the criminal victims are getting more attention gradually. Due to this emphasis, it directly led to a first revolution in the criminal justice, the revival Restorative justice. For a criminal justice system, victim support and healing is a priority which might seem an obvious aim. "Restorative Justice" was first introduced by an American professor, Randy Barnett in 1977. Nowadays, restorative justice systems have been applied to criminal justice system in many countries (Tai Wan, Australia, the US and the UK etc). In spite of many researches of restorative justice composed by western scholars, however it has not yet been defined properly and cover over the cons of this system. Restorative Justice repairs the harm that caused by crime and reducing the future harm on victims, there are advantages yet there are also bad. In this essay, I will use the application of the principles of sociology, literature, ethics knowledge to demonstrate argumentation to restorative justice and to reflect the pros and cons. (160words)

1. What are the differences in the current mainstream criminal justice system and restorative justice? Define both while answering the question.

Restorative justice has some key restorative values that are vital in the restorative justice conference to make the experience ‘restorative’. Concerning addressing victim needs and concerns means for listening, respecting, being non-judgmental, not blaming the victim and apologizing. The RJ system was bought as an alternative to the criminal justice system to give greater emphasis on victim rights and needs, offender accountability and community involvement. Throughout the essay, there will be an insight into how Restorative Justice addresses needs of victims in terms of the different proponents such as Information provided to victim, restitution/compensation, emotional and practical needs met, participation and involvement of victim and protection of victim, which (Wemmers and Marisa, 2002) as essentials to victims participating in the practice. The two countries that will be addressed will have had restorative justice built out of injustices and over-representation of the current criminal justice system to the indigenous peoples of those countries.

Almost all general philosophies of punishment contribute different methods for determining any punishment’s fit with crime. Retributivism, a philosophy, broadly justifies the punishment that a person receive for breaking the law, through justice and the principle of desert. A common form of expressing the ideology of retribution is “an eye for an eye.” This theory consists of two main parts, the offender deserving punishment and the punishment should ft the crime. I will discuss the claim made by Retrbituivisist’s through focusing on whether Retributivist’s assumptions about moral responsibility are well founded.

Punishment has been in existence since the early colonial period and has continued throughout history as a method used to deter criminals from committing criminal acts. Philosophers believe that punishment is a necessity in today’s modern society as it is a worldwide response to crime and violence. Friedrich Nietzche’s book “Punishment and Rehabilitation” reiterates that “punishment makes us into who we are; it creates in us a sense of responsibility and the ability to take and release our social obligations” (Blue, Naden, 2001). Immanuel Kant believes that if an individual commits a crime then punishment should be inflicted upon that individual for the crime committed. Cesare Beccaria, also believes that if there is a breach of the

Deterrence is a further purpose that needs to be highlighted. The aim of punishment is also to warn people from crime committing under the fear of being punished and it might be reached through the well-developed criminal justice system, one of the main aim of which is to ensure that every wrongdoer will be punished for the criminal acts. There are two kinds of deterrence. They are general and specific deterrence. Ferris defines specific deterrence as deterrence which attempts to persuade the individual before the court not to commit further offences, while general deterrence is defined as the process of persuading others who might be inclined to offend not to do so. Deterrence has its own pros and cons as well. One of the main deterrence benefits is that it may reduce crime rate significantly and sharply. For instance, there is a three strikes policy in most states of USA, which means that if an individual has already been in jail two times and if this person commits a third crime, she would be automatically sentenced for 25 years regardless of crime seriousness. On the other hand, the main drawback is that criminals usually think that they will not be caught, so they continue committing crimes.

The pure model of consequentialism focuses on the punishment itself as a means of deterrence of future crime