Table of contentsRetributive justiceImportant situations for retributive justiceRestorative justiceAdvantages of restorative form of justiceArguments against restorative form of justiceComparison between retributive justice and restorative justiceConclusionThe term justice is defined as the quality of possessing righteousness, equity and moral rightness. In most cases, this term is confused with the word equity and is used interchangeably with it. In many situations, there is a desire to be treated fairly regardless of location; in the workplace, at church, at school and even at home. This is what is commonly called justice (Alarid, 2016). There are different types of justice. However, in this article we will focus on two types of justice: restorative and retributive. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get the original essay The goal of restorative justice is to heal the relationship between perpetrators (offenders), victims, and the society in which the injustice has happened. Normally, restorative justice focuses on the needs of perpetrators, victims and society. On the basis of this justice, victims normally find themselves bearing essential responsibility in the process. Offenders, on the other hand, are responsible for their actions in order to repair the damage they have already caused to victims (Colnoe, 2015). Retributive justice, for its part, is a form of justice whose goal is to find fault and punish the guilty. Retributive justice believes that punishments for crimes are acceptable provided they are proportional to the harm caused. I find restorative justice to be better than retributive justice, especially when dealing with offenders, victims and society, because of its goal of healing the affected entities. Retributive justice involves finding fault and punishing the guilty. However, there is both retributive justice and restorative justice to restore victims and wrongdoers to their rightful level (Fiala, 2015). This article seeks to illustrate how restorative justice is an ideal strategy for dealing with defenders, victims and society. The discussion will be accompanied by advantages and benefits to show the ideality of restorative justice in matters of justice. The document would also present a discussion on restorative and retributive justice and present an ideal justice that can be applied when it is necessary to address offenses that have been committed. Retributive Justice In this form of justice, individuals receive what they deserve. The implication of this statement is that individuals who work harder than others obtain additional rewards for their efforts, and those who break the laws are subject to punishment. Furthermore, individuals deserve equal treatment, treatment that resembles that they give to others. For example, behaving well will come with the right to good treatment from others (Gavrielides, 2015). According to Alarid (2016), the natives of a society are entitled to the enjoyment of the positive merits associated with the rule of laws. In accordance with the concepts of fair play, patriotic citizens must act within the framework of a country's retributive system. Individuals who seek to gain privileges simply by relying on the rule of law without being willing to make necessary sacrifices, such as restraint, are considered free riders. Individuals are believed to have helped themselves by gaining unfair advantages. The Statetherefore strives to prevent this in order to preserve the rule of law (Alarid, 2016). In situations where the offenses were committed, individuals who possess certain advantages might lose them while people who do not deserve those advantages would gain them. them. This implies that punishment removes undeserved imposition, which in some sense tends to balance the damage caused by the offense. It is experienced as a debt that offenders owe to their colleagues. Therefore, retributive justice aims to restore both victims and offenders to their ideal levels in relation to each other. As such, retributive justice thus becomes retrospective. The justification for punishment is the result of past events of injustice or wrongdoing. Retributive justice aims to reinforce the rules that have been violated and to balance the scale of justice (Rotondi, 2015). Situations where retributive justice matters In a society, it is normal to have prolonged conflict. In most cases, this involves violence against innocent citizens. Sometimes violence is systematic, for example in the form of genocides, slavery or ethnic discrimination. Other criminal acts include rape, murder, torturing a person, or holding an event in an unsafe manner. In these situations, which put the parties involved “at war”, there is a violation of the law, and this is considered a war crime (Zehr, 2011). Although war has not been officially declared, these barbaric events of murder and genocide are an integral part of the violation of human rights and are not acceptable under international law. Many people believe that people who commit such criminal acts must face justice, and this is generally facilitated by international courts and tribunals whose role is to try war crimes. The retributive form of justice stands out as that which penalizes human rights violators for their inhumane activities. Punishing them is a way of strengthening the rules of international law and depriving human rights violators of unfair advantages (Worrall, 2016). Restorative justiceThis form of justice is normally used interchangeably with standard criminal justice activities, with both customary and original origins. justice systems. The aim of justice is to repair the damage caused by crime, within the framework of society. This form of justice is considered effective and that is why it has been adopted as an important part of criminal justice development in various parts of the world. Restorative justice can take many forms, including requiring offenders to meet face-to-face with the victim. However, at times other members of the public may be involved in the process (Guthrey, 2015). In this form of justice, members have the opportunity to discuss the impact of the crime and, on a collective basis, agree on how the victim can be compensated by the offender. Compensation may involve the offender paying for the stolen goods and providing free labor to the company. This primarily aims to inspire healing in victims, compensate for damages, and reintegrate offenders into the community as law-abiding civilians (Alarid, 2016). Some restorative justice concepts hold that individuals should work to repair victims. , and those most affected should have the opportunity to participate fully. The government's responsibility, on the other hand, is to maintain fair public order while society is required to createand maintain impartial peace. I see restorative justice as an ideal solution for addressing offenders, victims and society because it uses a simple process. Below is a process used by restorative justice (Fiala, 2015); · The first step is to use a victim-offender resolution program. In this process, qualified mediators aim to bring the victim and the perpetrator together. This is done deliberately to identify the offense and the procedure required to vindicate the entities involved. · Development of conference programs: This is the second process that resembles victim-offender reconciliation. Conference programs involve victims, offenders and their society representatives and family members. · Development of victim-offender panels: Panels are necessary to bring together the unrelated offender and victim parties, linked by the mutual form of the crime and not the specific wrongdoings that implicated the others. · Victim Support Programs: Programs aim to provide services to the victim of crime to help them recover from the damage in addition to continuing the criminal justice process. Victim support programs are essential because they help the victim forget the misconduct they may have encountered and move on with their lives. The above programs illustrate the importance of restorative justice in the treatment of victims, offenders and victims. society in general. Restorative justice is an ideal option compared to other forms of justice.Advantages of the restorative form of justiceThe restorative form of justice considers offenders responsible for their actions, albeit in a constructive and meaningful way, which can result in to a more sustained experience of justice for the victim and society as a whole. Both the victim and the offender are very satisfied with the approach and the results. Offenders become more forward-looking by terminating society and restitution service. There is also a form of repeat bargaining (Zehr, 2011). Restorative justice involves various parties. Therefore, it does not entrust major tasks to the government and violators. This justice takes into consideration the victims and society too. This approach is essential because all parties are taken into consideration. This form of justice measures success, which makes it unique compared to retributive and other forms of justice. For example, rather than simply measuring the extent of the punishment imposed, the restorative form measures the extent to which the harm has been repaired or prevented from recurring in the future. This property is an essential benefit of this form of justice since it contributes to ensuring the presence of truth and reconciliation. Furthermore, justice for all is ensured (Gavrielides, 2015). Most importantly, restorative justice appreciates the essence of society's embrace and initiative to respond and minimize crimes. The government therefore no longer has to tackle crime problems alone. I think this is essential because society will now be able to deal with the problems arising from crime, even at the level of grassroots rot. The element helps ensure the development of a society in which crime is minimal and a society that avoids engaging in criminal activities (Alarid, 2016). The commitment of the victim and the aggressor is observed at all times for the benefit of the restorative form of justice. Through this participation, the victim and the aggressor are given responsibility, which sometimes translates into decision-making supremacy and the right to beheard. The restorative places offenders in the benevolence of the justice systems, and it can go both ways. For example, the offender may be found not guilty or guilty. It is therefore essential because it ensures that justice to offenders is delivered in the same way as to victims (Fiala, 2015).Arguments against the form of restorative justiceAlthough restorative justice is considered ideal in a society due to of its advantages, it could It would be interesting to review the dark side of this form of justice. However, its disadvantages are minimal, implying that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. First, for this form of justice to work, the offender and victim must have communication regarding the offense and the consequences. Since some crimes leave the victim helpless and vulnerable (especially if violent), anxiety and fear may cause reporting of cases to be encouraged. Additionally, reporting may endanger privacy, particularly for victims of rape and assault, as they should discuss the results of the offense and how it affected them (Colnoe, 2015). Elsewhere, critics of restorative justice argue that this form of justice is incapable of reducing recidivism among violent criminals. On the other hand, statistics reveal that offenders who engage in some form of restorative justice are less likely to receive restitution unless the system is less than perfect (Zehr, 2011). Some people in society believe that the restorative form of justice avoids punishment. offenders equally and fairly. Of course, this punishment will depend on the type of crime committed, the age of the criminal and the place where the sentence will be handed down. For example, the way restorative justice is applied within the court setting is different from its application outside the court system, and the way it is applied in juvenile courts is different from its application in adult courts (Worrall , 2016). Retributive and Restorative Justice Since we understand the underlying differences between these two forms of justice, it might be helpful to first understand that Canada's criminal justice system operates on the basis of a form of retributive justice. Canada, in order to administer justice, punishes offenders. Indeed, he is the final victim of crimes and therefore has the power to punish people whom the State considers to be criminals. This form of justice linked to domination is seen as an approach to punishing “victimless crimes”. For example, drug traffickers indeed face severe punishment. When a country operates on the basis of retributive justice, it is considered a victim (Colnoe, 2015). According to retributivism, which is a central pillar of the retributive form of justice, the reason to punish is attributed to the fact that the wrongdoer deserves to be punished. This statement may seem simple, unless we examine the underlying implication which constitutes an essential aspect regarding morality and law. Retributivism requires that retribution be the central justification for law. The retributive form of justice assumes that there are rules whose main purpose is to guarantee the good morals of people. Crime, on the other hand, even if it does not cause victims, harms society. Thus, when a person violates the law, he or she violates the rules that govern the state and the rules that govern the behavior of citizens (Fiala, 2015). The restorative form, on the other side of the spectrum, is rooted in a different logic and philosophy altogether. It is considered a philosophy and a social movement that.