Notably, ‘Retributive Justice’ tackles the wrong done by an individual or individuals and attempts to make it right by a means of inflicting pain and suffering on the alleged wrongdoer. For instance when an individual does something wrong that is by law considered a crime, that person or persons are to suffer, whilst learning their lesson from such pain and suffering. As such, most people tend to abstain from any likelihood of doing any activities which is considered wrong, because of the realistic threat of punishment by the relevant authorities.
However, ‘Restorative Justice’ is the complete opposite as it strives to repair the wrong act committed, via an approach to justice that concentrates on the offenders’ and victims’ need, as an alternative
…show more content…
As such, the victims assumes an active role with the offenders, whereby there is some sort of mediation, but the wrongdoer are normally required to take responsibility for their actions. Moreover, this tends to bring some healing to the actual harm committed by the wrongdoer apologizing, compensating and working in a positive way to repair the harm caused.
Intrinsically, there are many points that encompasses the similarities and the differences between Retributive Justice and Restorative Justice, however I would choose to focus and discuss the following. Firstly retributive justice, criminal acts are wrongs done against the system or the state and deem violations of rules of policies or laws. Whereas restorative justice, criminal acts are demarcated as wrongdoings against the community and essentially the victim, as this act disrupts the community and people’s trust. Secondly, with retributive justice the lawbreaker is held responsible to the relevant authorities or the state for the unlawful act or crime; as such, accountability is associated with misery and pain, when the criminal is made to pay for their misdemeanors according to the rule of law they have been treated as liable. Nevertheless, under the scope of restorative justice they are