A Study of Restorative Justice and Retributive Justice

The term justice is defined as that quality of possessing righteousness, fairness and moral correctness. In most cases, this term is confused with, besides being used interchangeably with the word fairness. In several situations, there is the desire to be treated fairly irrespective of the place; at the place of work, at church, at school even at home. This is what is commonly identified as justice(Alarid, 2016). Different types of justice exist. However, in this paper, our focus would be on two types of justice; restorative and retributive.

The aim of restorative justice is healing the relationship between the culprits (offenders), the victims and the society in which the injustice occurred. Normally, restorative justice's concentration is on the needs of the culprits, victims, and the society. Based on this justice, the victims normally find themselves taking an essential responsibility in the process. The offenders, on the other hand, are liable for their actions as a way of undoing the damage they have already done to the victims(Colnoe, 2015).

The retributive justice, on the other hand, is a form of justice whose aim is finding faults and punishing the guilty. The retributive justice holds that the penalties of the crimes are acceptable provided that the penalties are proportional to the damage done. I find restorative justice being better than retributive justice especially when dealing with the offenders, the victimized and the society because of its aim of healing the affected entities. The retributive justice is all about finding faults and punishing the guilty. However, both retributive and restoration justice exist to restore the victimized and the wrongdoers to their rightful levels(Fiala, 2015).

This paper seeks to illustrate the way restorative justice is an ideal strategy for dealing with the defenders, victims, and the society. The discussion will be accompanied by advantages and benefits to show the ideality of restorative justice as far as justice is concerned. The paper would also present a discussion of both restorative and retributive justice and present an ideal justice that may be applied when there is a need to handle offenses that have been done.

Retributive Justice

In this form of justice, individuals receive what they deserve. The implication of this statement is that those individuals who work harder than the others get extra fruits of their effort, and the individuals who break the laws are liable for punishment. Moreover, individuals deserve equal treatment, a treatment that resembles the one they give to other people. For instance, behaving well will be accompanied with the entitlement of good treatment from other people(Gavrielides, 2015).

According to Alarid, (2016), the natives of a society are entitled to the enjoyment of the positive merits associated with the rule of laws. In line with thefair play concepts, patriotic citizens are required performing within the retributive system of a country. Individuals seeking to obtain privileges by merely depending on the rule of law although unwilling making necessary sacrifices, such as self-restraint are deemed to be free riders. The individuals are thought to have helped themselves in unfair benefits. The state, therefore, strives at preventing this as a way of preserving the rule of law(Alarid, 2016).

In situations the offenses have been committed, the individuals who possess certain benefits could lose them while people who do not deserve the benefits gain them. This implies that the punishment takes away the undeserved benefits by penalty imposition, which in some sense tends to balance the damage brought by the offense. It is suffered as the debt the offenders owe their colleagues. Therefore, the retributive justice in this aim is purposed to restoring both the victims and the offenders to their ideal levels with respect to each other. As such, the retributive justice in this way becomes backward-looking. Warranting of punishment is done as the feedback to the past events of unfairness or wrongdoings. Retributive aims at reinforcing the rules that have been violated and balances the scale of justice(Rotondi, 2015).

Situations that Retributive Justice Matter

In a society, it is normal to have protracted conflict. This in most cases involves violence that is experienced by the innocent citizens. Occasionally, the violence is performed systematically, for instance, in the form of genocides, enslavement or ethnic discrimination. Other acts of felony include rape, murder, torturing a person or carrying an event in a hazardous way. In these situations, that place the participating parties "at war", there is the violation of the law, and this is deemed to be the war crimes(Zehr, 2011). In spite of the war not being have been declared officially, these barbaric events of murder and genocide form part and parcel of human right violation and are not acceptable in international law.

Several individuals believe that the people perpetrating such acts of felony need to face the justice, and this is ordinarily facilitated by the international courts and tribunals whose role is carrying out war crimes adjudication. The retributive form of justice stands out to be the matter penalizing human right violators for their inhuman activities. The act of punishing them is done as the way of reinforcing international law rules and denying human right violators unfair advantages(Worrall, 2016).

Restorative Justice

This form of justice is normally used interchangeably with the standard criminal justice activities, with origins in customary and original systems of justice. The justice is purposed to mend the damage the crime has instigated, within the setting of the society. This form of justice is deemed to be effective, and that is the reason is has been adopted as a significant element of criminal justice development in various regions of the globe. The restorative justice may take several forms that may include making the offenders meet with the victimized on a face-to-face basis. However, at some times, other public members may get involved in the process(Guthrey, 2015).

In this form of justice, the members are provided with an opportunity of discussing the impact of the crime and on a collective basis, agree on the way the victimized may be compensated by the offender. The compensation may entail the offender paying for the stolen goods and providing free labor to the society. This is primarily aimed at inspiring the healing of the victims, compensating the damage and rehabilitating the offenders into the community as the law-abiding civilians(Alarid, 2016).

Some of the restorative justice concepts hold that individuals should work at repairing the victimized individuals, and the individuals who are most impacted should be provided with an opportunity of participating fully. The responsibility of the government, on the other hand, is to maintain a fair public order while the society is required creating and maintaining impartial peace. I consider the restorative justice an ideal solution to addressing the offenders, the victims, and the society since it employs an easy process. Below is a process the restorative justice employs(Fiala, 2015);

· The first step involves using victim-wrongdoer resolution program. In this process, the skilled mediators aim at bringing the victim and the wrongdoer together. This is done purposely to identify the offense and the procedure required in making affected entities right.

· Development of conferencing programs: This is the second process that resembles the victim-offender reconciliation. The conferencing programs involve the victims, offenders and their society representative(s) and the family members.

· Development of victim-offender panels: The panels are required to bring together the parties of the unrelated offender and the victim, connected by the mutual form of crime and not the specific wrongdoings that have involved the others.

· Victim support programs: The programs are purposed to provide services to the crime victim to help him/her in recovering from the damage besides carrying on through the criminal justice process. The victim support programs are essential since they help to bring the victim to forget the misconduct that he/she may have faced and move on with his/her live.

The above programs illustrate how important restorative justice is in dealing with the victims, offenders and the general society. Restorative justice is an ideal option in comparison to other forms of justice.

Advantages of Restorative Form of Justice

The restorative form of justice holds that the offenders be accountable for their actions although in a constructive and meaningful way and this may result in a more maintained experience of justice for the victim and the society as a whole. The victim and the offender both get highly gratified with the approach and the results. The offenders become more prospective in bringing to the end of the society and restitution service. There is also some form of bargaining recurrence offending(Zehr, 2011).

The restoration justice involves various parties. Therefore, it does not give major tasks to the government and the lawbreakers. This justice takes into consideration the victimized and the society too. This move is essential owing that all the parties are taken into consideration.

This form of justice measures the success, and this makes it unique than retributive and other forms of justice.

For instance, rather than merely measuring the extent of the imposed penalty, the restorative form measures the degree to which the damage has been mended or avoided to reoccur in the future. This property is an essential benefit of this form of justice since this helps to ensure the presence of truth and reconciliation. Moreover, justice to all is ensured(Gavrielides, 2015).

Most importantly, the restorative justice appreciates the essence of society envelopment and initiative in reacting to and minimizing crimes. Therefore, the government is relieved of dealing with the crime issues alone. I think this is essential owing that the society will now be capable of dealing with problems emanating from crime even at the grass-rot level. The element helps to ensure the development of society in which crime is minimal and the society that avoids engaging in crime activities(Alarid, 2016).

The engagement of the victim and the offender is observed at all times for the benefit of the restorative form of justice. Through this participation, the victim and the offender are provided with the responsibility, which at times is decision-making supremacy and the right to be heard. The Restorative puts the offenders at the kindness of judicial systems, and this may proceed in either way. For instance, the offender may be decided not be guilty or guilty. Therefore, this is essential since it ensures that the justice to the offenders is provided equally as to the victims(Fiala, 2015).

Arguments Against Restorative Form of Justice

In spite of restorative justice being considered ideal in a society because of its advantages, it could be worthwhile reviewing the dark side of this form of justice. However, its disadvantages are minimal implying that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. To start with, for this form of justice to work, the offender and the victim should have a communication concerning the offence and the consequences.

Owing that some crimes leave the victimized helpless and vulnerable (especially if violent), anxiety and fear may result in case communication is encouraged. Moreover, communication may expose privacy, especially for rape and assault victims since they should discuss the outcomes of the offence and the way it affected them(Colnoe, 2015). Elsewhere, the critics of restorative justice argue that this form of justice is incapable of decreasing recidivism within violent criminals. On the other side, statistics reveal the offenders who engage in restorative form of justice are less probable to re-fund apart from the system not being perfect(Zehr, 2011).

Some people in the society feel that the restorative form of justice avoids punishing the offenders equally and fairly. Of course, this punishment will depend on the kind of crime committed, the criminal’s age and the place for sentencing. For instance, the way restorative form of justice is applied in the court setting is different from its application outside the court system, also the way it is applied in juvenile courts is different from its application in adult courts(Worrall, 2016).

Comparison Between Retributive and Restorative Justice

Such that we appreciate the underlying differences between these two forms of justice, it could be worthwhile first understanding that Canada's criminal justice system operate based on the retributive form of justice. Canada, as a way of administering justice, punishes the law breakers. This is because it is the final victim of crimes and, therefore, possesses the authority of punishing people the state believes to be criminals. This domination-related kind of justice is regarded as an approach of punishing the "victimless crimes", for instance, drug traffickers indeed experience a harsh penalty. When a country operates based on retributive justice, the country is deemed to be the victim(Colnoe, 2015).

According to retributivism, which is a central pillar of the retributive form of justice, the reason for punishing is attributed to the fact that the wrongdoer deserves to be punished. This statement may sound simple not unless one looks at the underlying implication that forms an essential aspect concerning morality and law. Retributivism requires retribution to be the central rationale for the law. The retributive form of justice assumes that there are rules whose purpose is primarily ensuring good morals of people. The crime, on the other hand, in spite of being victimless harms the society. As such, when a person violates the law, he/she offends the rules governing the state and rules governing the behavior of the citizens(Fiala, 2015).

The restorative form, on the other side of the spectrum, is anchored in the entirely different logic and philosophy. It is considered as the philosophy and social movement that offer an entirely different approach to handling crime and punishment. In comparison to retributive justice in which the state is the major victim of a felonious act and punishes the wrongdoers, who do not participate in finding the solution to the offense, the restorative form of justice, elsewhere strives at healing and rehabilitating the parties at war. The assumption of this form of justice is that individuals mostly affected by criminal acts need to be presented with an opportunity of participating in finding the solution to the conflict. The objective of restorative justice is allowing the offenders to be liable for doing misconducts to their fellow citizens and aid the victimized to overcome their bad encounters(Rotondi, 2015).

Currently, in Canada, the restorative form of justice is commonly used addressing matters associated with youth offenders and juveniles. This could be attributed to the fact that the percentage of recidivism, especially within children courts of justice is high. Complete opposite of the spectrum, the restorative form of justice results to lower recidivism rates. This has made it to be practiced in juvenile courts not only in Canada but several countries in the world(Colnoe, 2015).

The table below summarizes the comparison between retributive and restorative forms of justice(Alarid, 2016);

From the comparison above, it is evident that restorative justice is much better than retributive justice since it is more society centric and aims to make the victim whole.

Conclusion

This paper presented retributive and restorative forms of justice. Restorative justice aims at healing the relationship between the culprits (offenders), the victims and the society in which the injustice occurred. The retributive justice, on the other hand, aims at finding faults and punishing the guilty. The aim of this paper was illustrating the way restorative justice is an ideal strategy for dealing with the defenders, victims, and the society than retributive justice. The paper reviewed the advantages and benefits to show the ideality of restorative justice as far as justice is concerned. Discussed in the paper, was also a comparison between restorative and retributive justice as a way of determining an ideal justice that may be applied when there is the need to handle offenses that have been done.