Persuasive Essay: The Implications of Retributive and Restorative Justice When the general public is asked about defining a concept of justice, most tend to settle on the idea of fairness. However, what fairness means to one may be inconceivable to another; it is subjective. Within scholarly circles, there are two dichotomies of justice that are discussed: retributive justice and restorative justice. Retributive justice centers on a sense of just desserts, of punishment against the offender to
Retributive Justice What is retributive justice? It is a system of criminal justice based on the punishment of offenders rather than rehabilitation. According to our notes, it is the oldest sense of the word justice. Others think of it as “an eye for an eye” or “getting even”. Justice should be more than getting even for crimes and offenses. Retributive justifications of punishments have largely endured the test of time. Kant's views on retributive justice is the punishment itself has a larger
Utilitarianism was long thought to violate the Principle of Retributive Justice, the concept of being punished for crimes committed. Under closer examination, it is revealed that Utilitarianism and Retributive Justice do not clash. According to Mill, the concept of justice is actually derived from utility. When an individual's moral rights are violated, it is a natural tendency to want to retaliate against the violator. The retaliation ensures that such an act would not happen again. By protecting
right in the general population eye. Establishing justice creates a safe environment for individuals to live in. Since justice is the discipline of the wrong and maintains order in society, justice is then fulfilled to keep up what is regarded right or appropriate. Without justice, there would be nothing to prevent offenders from committing crimes and to punish individuals for doing things against what has been established as tolerable in society. Justice is overbearing because it gives people the benefit
Restorative justice is a collaborative decision-making process that includes victims, offenders and others seeking to hold offenders accountable by having them: (1) accept and acknowledge responsibility for their offences, (2) to the best of their ability repair the harm they caused to victims and communities, and (3) work to reduce the risk of re-offense by building positive social ties to the community (Karp, 2004). Restorative Justice is just one of many justice mechanisms used in society. There
The purpose of this paper is to examine the processes of both Restorative and Retributive justice through the case of Sara Kruzan vs. The State of California. First we will establish the principle philosophers associated with each type of justice and those system's theoretical applications in our criminal justice system. Then we will apply both systems to Sara Kruzan's trail and determine the publishable outcomes. Finally we will review Sara's Life after her trial and speculate on what system would
into a more peaceful future. There are no shortcuts or simple solutions for healing the wounds of victims that experienced those treacherous events. Invariably, the utterance of retributive justice and restorative justice arises as the means to finding a solution. As the fields of retributive justice and restorative justice appear they are both relatively emerging examples of approaches, and, over the course of the past decade, there has been mutual expansion and interaction to inform the people of
B. Restorative Justice There is some theoretical ambiguity in the meaning of Restorative Justice in spite of the many definitions and studies done on the subject. Restorative Justice has been defined as “an ethos with practical goals, among which to restore harm by including affected parties in a (direct or indirect) encounter and a process of understanding through voluntary and honest dialogue.” It is primarily concerned with the reinstatement of victims to life before the crime, restoration
punishment with the penalty for more serious crimes in the sam... ... middle of paper ... ...punishment in store, but as He is more forgiving than our justice system, I am sure He will give the individual a chance to redeem himself. Works Cited Christine Chamberlin ND, Not kid anymore: A need for punishment and deterrence in the juvenile justice system http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/lwsch/journals/bclawr/42_2/04_TXT.htm Doug Gibson (2010) High court arrogantly decides what punishment juveniles
detail. Retribution most clearly expresses what people instinctively feel is the basis of the punishment. The retributive arguments have a long and ancient history particularly in the west because of the support of Biblical and Church traditions. In the past, law codes of the Old Testament, Babylonian Hammurabi (1728-1686 BCE) and other ancient periods in times use a retributive argument. A lex talionis (the law of the tooth) is adopted in the Old Testament: "An eye for an eye, and a tooth
There are two different types of justice such as Restorative justice and Retributive justice. According to Gibbs and Jacobson's (2009) restorative justice aims to heal the relationships between the victim and the offender and maybe even with the community where the crime had taken place while on the other hand Retributive Justice emphasizes that penalty provided that it’s a proportional response to the offense that has been committed. I believe that many people feel the same way as in they want to
Retributive justice is a type of justice, which believes a punishment should be both rightful and proportionate to the immoral act. This type of retribution is similar to that of the concept “what goes around, comes around” and is prominent is various unethical acts such as an individual committing the act murder and then going to prison. Khaled Hosseini’s The Kite Runner and William Shakespeare’s King Lear are perfect examples of literature that integrate retributive justice into the plot. Both
This outlook seems to be a rather extreme one with regard to those who are not recidivists, example first offenders, because it places absolutely no faith in human nature. Von Hirsch also critiques this concept, because it requires a faith in social justice such that the offender gains from others’ law-abiding behaviour based on mutual benefits accorded to all members of the society, and because offence against law do not always provide advantages to their perpetrators, unless the advantage is noticed
Philosophy of Law: A Defense of Retributivism With the field of philosophy, the concept of "desert" suggests the status of deserving a particular response based upon prior action. The term is often invoked within conversations dealing with blame and justice. However, philosophers disagree on whether desert justifies responsive behaviors such as punishment or revenge. This debate is particularly significantly within the context of a legal system that purports to punish criminals in a manner that is consistent
Feinburg (1994, cited in: Easton, 2012: 4) says that punishment is “a symbolic way of getting back at the criminal, of expressing a kind of vindictive resentment”. When punishing an offender there are two key principles that determine the kind of punishment. These are the Retributivism response and the Reductivist response. The first principle, Retributivism, focuses on punishing the offence using 'denunciation' where they denounce the crime that has been committed so society knows they have done
Hobbes concludes his definition of punishment by clearly delineating the end to which all penalties should be directed: “That the will of men may thereby the better be disposed to obedience” (Hobbes, Leviathan, II.xxviii, 353). In his use of the phrase “better disposed to obedience,” Hobbes fashions punishment as a forward-looking practice, with the aim of shaping the criminal, and others by observation, into law-abiding subjects. In doing so, he simultaneously invalidates the legitimacy of “punishments”
Ethical Standards The word Justice means the quality of being impartial, fair, and just (Pollock, 2017, p.56). The concept of justice helps to determine guilt and dispense punishment for criminal violation. There are two components of corrective justice substantive justice and procedural justice. Substantive justice is how fair punishment is determined. Procedural justice is the steps taken before administering punishment. The purpose of this paper is to discuss a situation and determining the sentence
How do we justify an action and our emotions in order to be able to decipher what is wrong or right? There is righteousness in forgiveness to help restore a sense of justice, peace and stability. There are two concepts to the principle of justice, which produce of the action of forgiveness. Retributive response achieves justice through punishment against the offender whereas restorative response finds an admissible redemption option reasonable to their questionable action/behavior. The role of
types of Justice discussed in Book 1 of Plato’s Republic which are Retributive, Procedural, and Social Justice. Retributive justice is the type of justice that requires someone to pay back their debts if they took something. According to Cephalus, justice requires ‘repayment’ from those who have taken something. For example, The death penalty can be considered retributive justice because someone may have took a life and now their life will be taken from them in return. Procedural justice is doing
ensure the wellbeing of individuals based on race, ethnicity, sex, age etc. Unfortunately, this side of equality does not recognize diversity and is insufficient for promoting social inclusiveness. Even though it may give the illusion of equality and justice, it is actually creating inequality and is actually ending up discriminating individuals (EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, 2004). Substantive equality is referred to as equity in the sense that equality also involves recognizing differences when