Retributive Justice Compared To Restoration Justice Custom Essay

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 (n. n, 1999). 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 extent of offense committed. This concept is foundational throughout the world. The proof of this 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 offense. At times the punishment does not always have to be equivalent to the offense (Retributive Justice, n. d). The retributive system makes compulsory to reprimand serious offense more callously than minor offense. 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 offense that was committed and in agreement with the offense 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 offense.
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. This approach does not look to satisfy the obvious legal principle that requires punishing an offender. 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 views crime as an affront on individual or community, rather than the state (Repairing the Harm, n. d). 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 offense they did (Repairing the Harm, n. d).
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 formulae a viable solution to the scenarios.
Restoration 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. Restoration justice seeks to find a solution to an offense and encourages harmonious living while retributive justice focuses on putting blame. The restoration justice principle seeks to satisfy the needs of the victim and encourages the offender to take responsibility of their offense. 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. On the other hand 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)

Place an order with us. Our skilled and experienced writers will deliver a custom paper which is not plagiarized within the deadline which you will specify.

Note; 6 Hours urgent orders deliver also available.
If you need more clarifications contact our support staff via the live chat for immediate response. Use the order calculator below and get ordering with now!