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 damage to the victim, and the victim must accept restitution or compensation for the offender’s transgression reluctantly.

Victims than has no choice but to accept one last oppressive “dogmatism- it would not be unreasonable to assert that those who had negotiated and who produce the TRC law did in fact have the credentials to speak on behalf of the victims and have been heartily endorsed in doing (Tutu page 57)” and the possibility of inequities when essentially public duties are left in the hand of interested parties to conclude justice. Therefore, restorative justice aims as far as possible “to the healing of a traumatized and wounded people (Tutu page 78)” and to correct the disproportionate.

It is centered on the notion from A Lexicon of Terror by Margurite Feitlowitz that’s “when a people’s very word have been wounded, the society cannot fully recover until the language has been healed. Words… [Are all interconnected, that crime of humanity is a violation of relationships, and that such defilements create obligations. ] Mark the path of our experience… language is a boundary between our vulnerable inner selves and the outside world (Feitlowitz page 62).

” In addition of outside public meetings that is held to provide everyone with a sense of ownership in the process of a meaningless “solution…the truth in exchange for the freedom of the perpetrators (Tutu page 58). ” That makes this solution “a criminal order under normal circumstance (Ardent page 148). ” This is still evident in the way traditional courts function and the principles they uphold in retributive justice which everything must be judge in a normal society.

Transitional justice can embrace any other agenda using restorative justice theories but the ultimate aim is offender accountability, reparation to the sufferer and full contribution by all those concerned in that “we possess an extraordinary capacity for evil (Tutu page 144)” and good. Transitional justice attempts to mending the destruction and reestablish human dignity by rehabilitate those affected and isolated by the crime.

The purpose of the restorative system is then to rebuild the healing balance of nations interconnection or in Tutu’s notion of “Ubuntu (Tutu page 54),” define as the interconnection of societies which stems from the Zulu philosophy as an existence and merging of African societies world-view based on respect and understanding among individuals. It is a basis for South African’s morality but is not merely a social ideology; it is seems as the potential of being human “capacity to forgive, their magnanimity and nobility (Tutu page 103).

” Ubuntu is not a criminal justice term, or a legal instrument, but is a major determining feature in the establishment of opinions that impact social behavior in South Africa’s TRC successes. It is in part about punishment but also healing the lesions caused by crimes. The TRC in the form of restorative justice enables all the parties to the crime to be openly involved in answering to the State and legal authorities as facilitators. The result of quasi-transitional restorative justice is an agreement on how the offender will make

restitution to the victim much like retribution, in one ineffective form or another. Because the central ideology of openness is in itself an overpowering influences of internalizing self-hate as a road block for other countries to adopt transitional justice system which lack procedural and constitutional or due process rights. The wasted conception of restorative justice to be adopted by other countries should also not adopt retributive justice.

Retributive justice has as much detriment as curative justice because then the victims are not required to accept other perception of repartition. Retribution justice is the notions of virtue and punishment, but the emphasis is on retribution and vengeances. The rational that individuals deserved what they receive is their reward. Two such examples are from Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt in that of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the Trails of Generals in Feitlowitz. In addition, individuals warrant to be treated the same, as they choose to treat others.

In cases of offense, some merits certain benefits, while some does not. Punishment eliminates the undeserved by imposing a penalty to balances the harm inflicted by the violation, but not all punishments merit the crime in “justified, and was justified in the eye of the world… [The illegal arrest of Eichmann and his travesty of trail] partly because the defendants at Nuremberg and other postwar trails had tried to exculpated themselves at his expense (Arendt page 210). ” It is given as a debt to the offender who owes his country.

Retributive justice in a way aims to restore both victim and offender to their appropriate balance. It acts to strengthen rules that have been shattered and stability justice. However, there is tendency to slide from retributive justice to dangerous revenge. Vengeance in a way matter in acceptance, it is the level of scores with those who have injured us. It can teach offenders how it feels to be treated in certain ways or “that they were in fact the courts of the victors, and the authority of their judgment (Arendt page 256).

” Like retribution, vengeance is a reaction to injustices committed against victims and reflects the proportionality of justice from those who have won the war. These emotions are potentially destructive because they intense feelings that lead people to panic, consequential the punishments are excessive and cause additional hatred. The retribution criminal justice sanctions of restitution and community service are used to restore the balance. In this, restorative justice is not so very different.

The quantity of success is “a double-edged sword… without its protection, it is hard to believe that Scilingo and others would have come forward… that the law helped to elicit information. At the same time the law has been interpreted too broadly (Feitlowitz page 244)” whether the harm is repaired or prevented rather than any punishment is meted out to the offender. Restorative and retribution justice is limited by the current and previous governments in responses to crimes that are cost effective than the traditional trial procedure and everyone gets a mediocre trail.

Nevertheless, the offender is forced to take responsibility for his conduct, thus having a positive impact on community and Ubuntu. International standards for community based justice have also been developed international conduct, thereby leading to this transitional justice having a positive and negative impact on countries conduct. Restorative and retribution justice is not without criticism.

A number of concerns on the absence of bureaucratic and constitutional or due process rights of criminals, questions regarding the authority to decide the course of a case. Consequently, the concern with the guarantee of protection and the possibility of inequities when civic duties are left to interested parties to govern. The lack of counsel’s role for the defense or public responses is often from an opponent’s viewpoint and not seen as traditional sanctions, makes retribution and restorative very ineffective to address justices.