Social Justice report
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 should be given the opportunity to be reintegrated into the community he has injured by his offense (Tutu page 54).” In order for this to transpire, the wrongdoer must take responsibility for the circumstance that their conduct has caused
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 should be given the opportunity to be reintegrated into the community he has injured by his offense (Tutu page 54).” In order for this to transpire, the wrongdoer must take responsibility for the circumstance that their conduct has caused