Professor Wells Restorative Vs. Retributive Justice Retributive justice is a legal basic that dictates that punishment for a crime is acceptable as long as it is a equivalent response to the crime committed. In this type of justice system, a crime is typically seen as being done against the state or government. As such, it is left to the government to pursue justice in terms of punishment against the individual who has committed the crime. In most respects, retributive justice seeks to punish a person
Chapter 3 The theories of punishment 1 Introduction Many restorative justice practitioners seem to have a sense that the whole paradigm is so contrary to the way most legal practitioners especially prosecutors and magistrates think, that there is little common ground to be found. Legal practitioners often perceive restorative justice as not taking seriously the fundamental concerns of a criminal justice system. While restorative justice certainly is a very different lens to the one that is usually
1. Introduction Punishment for acts that is regarded as crimes, have existed long before the first codification laws. It is as a tool used to pre-empt and prevent any future or further criminal conduct in society. What is seen as appropriate punishment has changed over the millennia, from punishments like crucifixion and stoning to today’s methods of restorative justice. To determine whether or not a law or legal policy is supported, the application of it by the judiciary, the writings of academics
very different, though it is not very common it has been used during some well known events like the Genocide in Rwanda. Restorative justice revolves around the theory that everyone in a community is connected and if a crime happens it causes these connections to get weaker. By just throwing someone in jail or some other type of punishment, that doesn't help the community, the focus of restorative justice is to mend the community by getting the offender to take responsibility and to repair the community
Canadian criminal courts there are three general sentencing options which judges or juries can choose when sentencing a criminal. These options are known as utilitarian sentencing, retributive sentencing and restorative sentencing. In theory, utilitarian sentencing is focused on the future conduct of the criminal, retributive sentencing focuses on punishing the criminal for past conduct and restorative sentencing focuses on criminals reconciling with victims. All three options have good reasons to pursue
and some even see it as a climax for his inquiries and argumentations that were made in two of his previous books; Punishment and Welfare
When thinking about punishment, many people couple it with committing crime and think nothing more than that, and few understand the purpose of punishment. “Punishments vary in their underlying philosophy and form. Major punishment philosophies include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and restoration.” (Miethe & Lu, 2005). Each of these philosophies is unique in that they each focus on a particular necessity that the public would benefit from, while remaining independent of
Without Retribution 1. Introduction In his paper, “Restoration and Retribution,” Antony Duff contends that to defend retributive justice it is not incompatible with defending restorative justice. He maintains that a restorative view is right to insist that responses to crime should be restorative and that retributivists are also right to demand that offenders suffer the punishments they deserve. Yet, Duff makes the further claim that restoration is not merely compatible with retribution: it requires
Luban addresses two main questions: how we got from there to here, that is, from just war theories that embraced the punishment theory to its current erasure. The second being whether the punishment theory may nevertheless be right. For decades, just war theorists realized that wars could be waged to fulfill desire, punish or avenge wrongdoings. Currently, this punishment theory of just cause has evaporated from international law, which recognizes only collective and individual self-defense as
INTRODUCTION The United States criminal justice system has witnessed many drastic changes over the last 40 years, especially in terms of punishment. The rates of incarceration in the U.S. have increased ten-fold since the 1970s when the U.S. began to rely on incapacitation as the primary means of dealing with crime, establishing a system of punishment focused on incarcerating those violate the law at rapid (and alarming) rates while favoring a strong, law-and-order approach to crime. The issue in