What is the difference between retributive justice and restorative justice

The ultimate objectives of Restorative Justice include victim healing, offender rehabilitation and accountability, victim empowerment, reconciliation, reparation of the harm caused, community involvement, and resolution of the conflict between all parties concerned. Thus, active participation by all parties is imperative. Restorative Justice typically follows a process that involves either negotiation between the parties concerned or mediation.

This theory of justice focuses equally on all three parties affected by a crime. It is thus an alternative to punishment in the criminal justice system. The victims and the community play an important role in such a process while the needs and issues of all parties are discussed and resolved. In short, Restorative Justice serves as a forum in which the victim, offender, and the community can freely raise their issues, concerns and needs in relation to the aftermath of the crime.

This reparation can be in the form of rehabilitation, community service, or any other form. Restorative Justice This table illustrates the differences in the approach to justice between Retributive Justice and Restorative Justice. Retributive Justice Restorative Justice Crime is an act against the state, a violation of a law, an abstract idea Crime is an act against another person and the community The criminal justice system controls crime Crime control lies primarily in the community Offender accountability defined as taking punishment Accountability defined as assuming responsibility and taking action to repair harm Crime is an individual act with individual responsibility Crime has both individual and social dimensions of responsibility Punishment is effective: Threats of punishment deter crime Punishment changes behavior Punishment alone is not effective in changing behavior and is disruptive to community harmony and good relationships Victims are peripheral to the process Victims are central to the process of resolving a crime.

Restorative Justice What is Restorative Justice? An attributional analysis of punishment goals and public reactions to O. Simpson Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23 , — Gromet, D. Restoration and retribution: How including retributive components affects the acceptability of restorative justice processes. Social Justice Research, 19 , — Haslam, S. Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach 2nd ed. London: Sage.

Salient group memberships and persuasion: The role of social identity in the validation of beliefs. Brower Eds. Research on socially shared cognition in small groups pp. Heider, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley. Hogan, R. Retributive justice. Lerner Eds. Hogg, M. Group cohesiveness: A critical review and some new directions. European Review of Social Psychology, 4 , 85— Social identity and leadership processes in groups.

Zanna Ed. San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press. Hudson, B. Restorative justice: The challenge of sexual and racial violence.

Journal of Law and Society, 25 , — Huo, Y. Procedural justice and social regulation across group boundaries: Does subgroup identity undermine relationship-based governance? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 , — Superordiante identification, subgroup identification, and justice concerns: Is separatism the problem, is assimilation the answer?

Psychological Science, 7 , 40— Kahan, D. Social meaning and the economic analysis of crime. Journal of Legal Studies, 27 , — Kerr, N. Defendant-juror similarity and mock juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 19 , — Justice and desert-based emotions.

Latimer, J. The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. Prison Journal, 85 , — Lerner, M. Integrating societal and psychological rules of entitlement. Steensma Eds. New York: Plenum Press. Lind, E. The social psychology of procedural justice. Marques, J. European Review of Social Psychology, 5 , 37— Marshall, T. Restorative justice: An overview.

London: Home Office. McClelland, D. Human motivation. McFatter, R. Sentencing strategies and justice: Effects of punishment philosophy on sentencing decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36 , — Purposes of punishment: Effects of utilities of criminal sanctions on perceived appropriateness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67 , — McGarty, C. The creation of uncertainty in the influence process: The roles of stimulus information and disagreement with similar others.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 23 , 17— Meier, B. A comparison of human aggression committed by groups and individuals: An interindividual-intergroup discontinuity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40 , — Mikula, G. Testing an attribution-of-blame model.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 33 , — The role of injustice in the elicitation of differential emotional reactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24 , — Miller, D. Disrespect and the experience of injustice. Annual Review of Psychology, 52 , — Mummendey, A.

Aggression: Interaction between individuals and social groups. Tedeschi Eds. Chapter Google Scholar. Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3 , — Murphy, J. Forgiveness and mercy. Murugesan, V. The effect of humiliation on acceptance for retaliatory aggression. Myers, D. Social psychology 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Nisbet, R. Culture of honour: The psychology of violence in the South.

Boulder: Westview. Okimoto, T. Outcomes as affirmation of membership value: Monetary compensation as an administrative response to procedural injustice: Manuscript submitted for publication. Is compensation enough? Relational concerns in responding to unintended harm. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10 , — Orth, U. Punishment goals of crime victims.

Law and Human Behavior, 27 , — Pavlich, G. The force of community. Peachey, D. The Kitchener experiment. Galaway Eds. Raskin, R. A principal-components analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. It allows the community to heal, the victim to be repaid, and the offender to learn the error of his or her ways. The same cannot be said for retributive justice, as the only focus there is punishment. India needs to experiment with more democratic models aimed at reconciliation and restoration of relationships.

Enter your email address to subscribe to the blog followed by several Rankholders and ensure success in IAS. Email Address. Subscribe now. Skip to content Demand of the question Introduction. What is retributive and restorative justice. Difference between retributive justice and restorative justice: Retributive Justice Restorative Justice Here crime is viewed mainly as an act against the state, a violation of a law. Crime is viewed as an act against another person and the community.

Here the main argument is that, threats of punishment deter crime and punishment changes behaviour. Punishment alone is not effective in changing behaviour and is disruptive to community harmony and good relationships.