• Philosophy -> Political and Social Philosophy

• 0 Comment

Should justice be retributive or restorative? What are the implications of each approach?

Ardath Litster

When it comes to administering justice, there are two primary approaches: retributive and restorative. Both approaches have implications, both positive and negative, and deciding which approach is best suited for a particular situation depends on several factors.

Retributive justice is perhaps the most traditional approach, and it involves punishing individuals for their wrongdoing. This approach emphasizes the importance of holding people accountable for their actions and meting out punishments proportionate to the harm they've inflicted on others. Supporters of retributive justice argue that it serves as both a deterrent and a means of seeking justice for victims.

However, there are some significant drawbacks to retributive justice. One of the most commonly noted is that it tends to be punitive rather than rehabilitative, meaning that it doesn't necessarily help offenders to avoid repeating their mistakes. Additionally, if the goal of justice is to reduce harm, then retributive justice has some clear limitations. Punishments like imprisonment, fines, and community service can all create new harms for the offender and their families, and may not necessarily address the root causes of the offense.

Restorative justice, on the other hand, is focused more on repairing harm than on punishing offenders. This approach emphasizes the importance of building relationships between victims, offenders, and the wider community, with the goal of creating healing and restoring balance. Unlike retributive justice, which can often be adversarial and focused on punishment, restorative justice prioritizes dialogue, accountability, and empathy.

One of the major advantages of restorative justice is that it can help to break the cycle of harm and victimization. By focusing on repairing harm and helping to build healthy, supportive relationships, this approach can help individuals to understand the consequences of their actions and work towards becoming accountable and responsible members of society. Additionally, restorative justice can help to build community trust in the justice system, which can help to reduce crime and increase public safety.

The downside to restorative justice, however, is that it can be challenging to implement in practice. It requires a high degree of coordination, collaboration, and communication between victims, offenders, and justice system professionals, and may not be suitable for all types of offenses or all individuals. Additionally, some critics argue that restorative justice can be overly lenient and may not always hold offenders fully accountable for their actions.

In truth, both approaches to justice hold merit, and the decision of which approach to use should be made on a case-by-case basis. In some instances, retributive justice may be the most appropriate choice, particularly if an individual poses a serious threat to society or has committed a particularly heinous crime. Other times, restorative justice may be more suitable, particularly when the ultimate goal is to repair harm and help individuals to become productive and contributing members of society.

Ultimately, the most important thing is to focus on reducing harm and increasing justice, whatever that looks like in a given situation. Whether through retributive or restorative justice, the goal should always be to create a more equitable, compassionate, and just society for all.