Restorative Justice essays

I argue that it is more desirable to use punishment in tandem with restorative justice. Firstly, it is important to note that RJ does not insist on the total elimination of punishment. Many critics of punishment argue that in practice, punishment is disproportionately applied and often too harsh. This is because, despite retributivism’s commitment to proportionality, which requires that punishment be proportionate in its severity to the gravity of the offender’s criminal conduct in theory, in practice, retributive practices are often harsh and unfair. As such, they laud pure restorative justice as a suitable alternative, as at worst, restorative justice is too lenient, not too harsh. However, as demonstrated earlier in my discussion, a purely RJ approach could leave the wrong unrepaired and the victim unrestored, and if too lenient, can leave the offender vulnerable. If the censure of his wrongdoing is not effectively communicated to him, the offender may retain the false moral message that his desires take precedence over the rights of others and may leave the process unchanged and more likely to re-offend. An offender who is given a disproportionate or unnecessarily harsh punishment will be no better off either.

I recommend that a more desirable and practical stance would be to use punishment alongside restorative justice measures, depending on the severity of the crime so that minor crimes are not over-punished and more severe crimes are adequately punished. Here, I seek to acknowledge the existence of a parasitic relationship between restoration and retribution. The need for restorative justice and punishment to work together has been recognised by many theorists, who concede that in order for restorative justice to be viewed as legitimate, it needs to engage with punishment. Walgrave, a major RJ proponent, has acknowledged that contrasting retribution and restoration is misleading because retribution can and should be a part of restorative justice. Thus, I endorse Nils Christie’s proposal of a victim-centred court, where the first two stages would focus on addressing victims situations, and only at the third stage would a judicial officer decide if further punishment is required in addition to the unintended suffering involved in the offender’s restitutive efforts. Christie’s proposal has merit as it shows that although we cannot be completely against punishment, we can perhaps make it a last resort. However, although a desirable option, in practice, such a court would be virtually impossible to establish, particularly within the conventional justice system. However, I believe that the premise could potentially be explored and adopted, particularly with minor crimes, where the victims are given the option to decide whether or not to press charges.

Furthermore, the positive effects of a joint response of punishment and restorative justice are seen in’s argument, which is that punishment may operate as an instrument of healing when used in combination with all other means of restoring trust. These methods include the issue of an apology, the agreement to pay restitution, undergo rehabilitation, and other acts usually involved in the restorative justice process. demonstrates the potential positive effects of punishment on victims ability to recover through a survey of 400 students at Rutgers University. The survey first demonstrated that punishment was one of three major elements (alongside restitution and being treated with respect by the court), which would help the hypothetical victims recovery from crime. More importantly, the survey also showed that the subjects felt that an absence of punishment would harm their recovery, thus, demonstrating the importance of punishment alongside other factors which are present in RJ responses to victims recovery.

London’s survey further highlighted the potential success of punishment being used alongside other restorative responses by testing three models of emotional recovery based on (i) punishment alone; (ii) apology and restitution alone; (iii) punishment alongside apology and restitution. The survey found that the comprehensive model of punishment, applied alongside apology and restitution was more effective than the other two models. This shows that punishment can be used along with other restorative methods to achieve positive outcomes for victims as well as offenders.