Retribution and Restoration Justice

Why restoration justice is as futile as restitution justice.

Concerns about the ineffectiveness of traditional criminal justice systems have perpetrated new approaches to criminal justice. Such new approaches to transitional justice or restorative justice like truth commission, trails, reparation, and lustration or vetting. But the apprehension of restorative justice and retributive justice bring to light the argument and made clear that each is not as impeccable or a straightforward answer to justice for all legitimate victims. From 1945 to 2003 we have seen many different types of tribunals put together to handle criminal transgressors. Therefore, in exploring human’s interconnection, humanity’s overreaction to emotion and the method of justices will illustrate why restoration justice is as futile as traditional restitution justice.

Restorative justice is a theory of justice that relies on reconciliation rather than retribution. The most important principle is depended on the notion that a developed society operates with a balance of “respect for human rights and the acknowledgment of the responsibility and accountability by which the new democracy wishes to be characterized (Tutu page 54).” What’s required for the successes of restorative justice when an event occurs that disrupt the equilibrium, methods must be establish to restore the balance, so that members of the community, the victim, and offender, can come to terms with the incident and carry on with their lives. One such example is from No Future without Forgiveness by Desmond Tutu, “the central concern is the healing of breaches, the redressing of imbalances, the restoration of broken relations, a seeking to rehabilitate both the victim and the perpetrator, who shou...

... middle of paper ...

...r his conduct, thus having a positive impact on community and Ubuntu. International standards for community based justice have also been developed international conduct, thereby leading to this transitional justice having a positive and negative impact on countries conduct.

Restorative and retribution justice is not without criticism. A number of concerns on the absence of bureaucratic and constitutional or due process rights of criminals, questions regarding the authority to decide the course of a case. Consequently, the concern with the guarantee of protection and the possibility of inequities when civic duties are left to interested parties to govern. The lack of counsel’s role for the defense or public responses is often from an opponent’s viewpoint and not seen as traditional sanctions, makes retribution and restorative very ineffective to address justices.