Retributive Justice Compared to Restoration Justice - Essay Example

Retributive Justice Compared To Restoration Justice Retributive justice is a theory of integrity that deems castigation to be the most appropriate retort to crime. When one breaks the law, they forfeit their legal right to something of equal value. Justice necessitates that this penalty be enacted. This means that justice rivets seeking revenge on behalf of the aggrieved party or group of people (“Retributive Justice”). Let the punishment fit the crime is a principle maxim that denotes the rigorousness of punishment for a misdeed must be reasonable and proportionate to the severity of the violation. This concept is foundational throughout the world. Restorative justice also known as reparative justice is an approach of justice whose focal point is on the wishes of the victims and the offenders and all the involved parties (“Restorative Justice Practice”). This approach does not look to satisfy the obvious legal principle that requires punishing an offender. These two forms of justice are very different from each other. The paper will focus on the differences between reparative justice and retributive justice. The proof of retributive justice laws’ popularity is evident through ancient materials. For example, in the ancient Jewish community, this is shown in the Law of Moses; the law included punishments such as life for life. The opinion of whether a punishment is appropriate or fit enough for a certain crime varies greatly between the different cultures of the world. Comparability necessitates that the height of castigation should be leveled virtually to the severity of the offence. At times the punishment does not always have to be equivalent to the offence (Retributive Justice). The retributive system makes compulsory to reprimand serious offence more callously than minor offence. Conventionally, theorists of chastisement have compared retributivism with utilitarianism. Utilitarian believe punishment is advanced and defensible by an alleged capability to achieve future social benefits such as crime decline. Retributionists believe that punishment is archaic and only justified by the offence that was committed and in agreement with the offence committed. According to people that believe in retributive justice, the seriousness of the crime is usually determined by the amount of harm caused by the offence. Reparative justice involves the victims taking an active role in the restoration process whole the offenders are encouraged to take liability for their actions. This is by apologizing and returning property that was stolen. This form of justices mainly focuses on the personal needs of both the offenders and the victims. Other than restoring harmony among the victims and offenders, restoration justice seeks to rehabilitate the offenders. This principle is based on the theory of justice that believes crime to be an offence against an individual or community, rather than the state (Repairing the Harm, 13). This form of justice chairs dialogue between the victims and offenders. This dialogue seeks high rates of the victim’s satisfaction and the offender’s liability to the offence they did (Repairing the Harm, 28). Reparative justice is characterized by four major values that is, encounter between parties, the amending process, and reintegration process and inclusion stage. The process of restorative justice is lengthy and requires both parties to be committed to the process for it to be fruitful. The first value is the encounter between both parties. This first step involves all the parties that were harmed, that is the victim, the offender, the community that was involved and other groups that were involved. The second step in the restoration process is the amending process. This step involves the offenders. At this stage, the offenders are required to takes initiative to restore the harm and damage that they have caused. The third step or value in this process is reintegration process. At this stage, the restoration for both the victim and the offender takes place. This step also involves the other parties that were involved in the original crime. The final value of the restoration justice is the inclusion stage. This stage opens channels and gives opportunities for the offenders and the victims to come up with a resolution to the situation. Restorative justice and retributive justice are very different from each other. The principles that make the reparative justice are completely different from the principles in retributive justice. The fast major difference is the purpose that the forms of justice serve. Restorative justice seeks to find a solution to an offence and encourages harmonious living while retributive justice focuses on putting blame (“Restorative Justice Practice”). The restorative justice principle seeks to satisfy the needs of the victim and encourages the offender to take responsibility of their offence. Retributive justice states that an offender should be punished and the penalty of the crime should be measures by the harm caused; an eye for an eye. The second difference between restoration and retributive justice is considered a crime against a legit state, thus being a violation of a law of that governs the land. Legal academics have regarded restorative justice to be a grievous act committed against another individual and the community as a whole. In other words restorative justice can be considered under law to be a tort (a wrong committed against an individual) while retributive justice a crime (“Restorative Justice Practice”). Furthermore offences committed and tried under retributive justice raise the notion that crime in delinquent individuals is controlled by the criminal justice system. While retributive justice denotes that concept, restorative justice operates under a completely different principle which denotes the fact that crime control lies in the hands of the community. Another difference that arises between the two justice systems is, under restorative justice system punishment alone is not considered an effective method of transforming an individual’s behavior. Castigation is regarded to be disruptive to the harmony which exists in a community. In retributive justice punishment is considered to be the most effective method. Retributive justice highlights the fact that castigation changes behavior while the mere threat of castigation deters individuals from committing criminal offences. Another difference noted between the two systems is, under the retributive justice system victims are often peripheral to the process. The restorative justice system applies a different principle which ensures that the victim is the focal point of the process. The victims are central to the issue of resolving the crime. The restoration of justice uses the method of telling stories as a way of reconciling the victims, offenders and the communities involved. Story telling helps in the process as it demonstrates how stories either indigenous or not are critical to the rebirth of communities. Story telling compels some kind of action (“Restorative Justice Practice”). The teachings about family and the community and how and what governs the land is important as it reminds the people of harmony and compels them to take action towards the restoration of the community. Storytelling is important to the culture and political rebirth of an indigenous nation, for example Canada. In Canada, the Nuu-chah-nulth people have relied on the Haa-huu-pah storytelling as a way to solidify their ancestral and connection to the place (Repairing the Harm, 36). “The Haa-huu-pah is not fairy tales or entertaining stories for children” they are viewed as values that form the foundation for Indigenous governance and regeneration among the people. The broken relationship between the Aboriginals and Canada started at the arrival of the Europeans in the late 15th century. The lives and culture of the Aboriginal people have been greatly altered by the different waves of colonization. At some point, the Aborigines were viewed as an obstacle to the euro Canadian civilization. Therefore, the Canadian government adopted harsh assimilation policies that had to be adhered to without a choice. This led to the introduction of residential schools. The schools took the Indian children and put them in the schools. Any one that tried to portray any aspect of the Indian culture was severely punished. Restorative justice will be helpful to the Aborigines. This is because, through the process of reparative justice the Canadian government will apologize for the harm they caused to the Aborigines (“Restorative Justice Practice”). The other important aspect of restoration justice is that Aborigines will reconnect and relate will their past culture and traditions through storytelling. The fundamental questions in retributive justice are completely different and have a totally different focus when compared to restoration justice. In restoration justice the focus is on ‘who has been hurt’ and its goal is to heal and not to punish as well as meeting the needs of the individuals. The other major difference between retributive justice and reparative justice is that the judgment in retributive focuses on past issues and the offenders past record while in restoration justice the response focuses on the harmful consequences of the offenders behavior and focuses to rehabilitate the offender. This shows that reparative justice focuses on the future and not the past. In retributive justice, there is high dependence on professional who can be lawyers while in restoration justice there is direct involvement with both the offenders and the victims. This way it is easier for peace and justice to be restored as the victim will get satisfaction and the offender will have taken responsibility for his actions; which is a step to rehabilitation. Story telling will help the aborigines in restoration as the stories they will tell will be talking about their native culture and traditions. This will inform the new generation of their eroded culture. The stories told will create a link to the new generations and their forgotten culture. Story telling will help the aborigines relate with their culture and accept it. Story telling will help compel them take action towards the rebuilding of the aboriginal culture. The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that a large population, who has happened to be victims of violent crime, will go on to develop symptoms for which they will seek the assistance of a psychiatrist or a medical practitioner (Brian, 90). Some of the symptoms to be exhibited by the victims are depression, self-destructive behavior and depression. Beyond these symptoms are three overlapping crises: a crisis of relationship, a crisis of self-identity and self-destructive behavior. Psychiatrists assert that for healing to occur for the victim, they compel for there to be a reparative justice. The reparative justice system incorporates in it the process of “bearing witness” which makes the victim the central issue in the process (Brian, 90). The present system of justice does not offer any kind of assistance for our victims of crimes since they are peripheral to the actual criminal process. Thus, revictimization of our crime victims is a common ordeal in our current justice system. With the enactment of the reparative justice system, the victims are given the opportunity to overcome the three overlapping crisis. Works cited Repairing the Harm: Victims and Restorative. Web. 3. Dec. 2012. Restorative Justice Practice: The State of the Field, 1999. Web. 3. Dec. 2012.  Royce, Brian (2004). Operationalized Restorative Justice. In. The State of Corrections, Proceedings, Aca Annual Conferences. Laurel, Md: American Correctional Association, 1988. Print. Read More