03 Section B Option 1, Key question 4 - Restorative and retributive justice (part 2)
After an offence, should justice concentrate on repairing the harm or imposing a deserved punishment? This part of Key question 4 compares restorative and retributive justice, including how each holds offenders accountable and what each offers victims. You will learn to distinguish a judgement about what is fair from evidence about whether a policy reduces further crime.
Two questions after an offence
Responses to crime express ideas about justice as well as attempts to control behaviour. Restorative justice asks how those responsible for an offence can acknowledge and help repair its harm, with participation by those affected. Retributive justice asks what punishment an offender deserves for a wrong already committed. Both can demand accountability: accepting responsibility and answering for what one has done. Their disagreement concerns the form and justification of that accountability.
In this specification, restorative justice appears among left-wing crime policies and retributive justice among right-wing policies. The contrast connects a greater emphasis on participation and reintegration with a greater emphasis on individual responsibility and deserved punishment. It is a guide to contrasting policy approaches, rather than a claim that every supporter of restoration belongs to the political left or that every right-wing policy has only a retributive aim.
Consider an original example: an offender deliberately damages a neighbour's bicycle. A restorative response might enable the neighbour to explain the loss of transport and agree a practical way of making amends. A retributive response would ask what penalty is proportionate to the wrongdoing. Paying for repairs could feature in either response. To identify the approach, examine who participates and why the response is justified; the outward action alone may be inconclusive.
Two different questions follow. A normative question asks what ought to happen: is a response deserved, fair or respectful of rights? An empirical question asks what happens in practice: does it reduce repeat offending, improve victims' experience or fulfil an agreement? Evidence that a programme reduces recorded offending does not by itself prove that its treatment of participants is fair. Conversely, a person might regard a proportionate punishment as deserved even if it produces no reduction in offending.
This distinction is especially useful for the Key question, “How can crime and deviance be reduced?” Retribution is a justification for punishment; a separate mechanism and evidence are needed before claiming that punishment prevents future crime.
Repairing harm through participation
Restorative practice gives those affected an opportunity to discuss the consequences of an offence and a possible response. It is more demanding than simply telling an offender to say sorry. Reparation means making amends for harm; it may involve practical repair, compensation or another suitable agreed action. Some harms cannot be reversed, so restoration cannot promise to return a victim to their exact situation before the crime.
In a facilitated conference, preparation comes before any meeting. The facilitator discusses expectations and safety with the parties; the offender must acknowledge the basic facts rather than use the event as a trial of guilt. A meeting can allow the victim to describe the effects, the offender to respond and those involved to consider an achievable agreement. Preparation, support and follow-up matter: an impressive promise has little value if nobody can fulfil or monitor it. Restorative communication can also be indirect, such as a letter, rather than a face-to-face encounter.
The Victims' Code for England and Wales describes participation as voluntary, requires agreement that proceeding is safe and appropriate, and allows a participant to withdraw. Informed participation means understanding the process and its possible consequences before choosing. Consent is an ongoing safeguard, rather than a signature that permits any later pressure. The opportunity to communicate does not create a duty to forgive, accept an apology or resume a relationship. Ministry of Justice, Victims' Code, Right 3.
An original example shows the mechanism. A person who burgled a home may initially think only about the value of stolen property. Hearing how the resident now fears entering an empty house could make the less visible harm harder to dismiss. An agreed action then connects responsibility to something the offender must do. This is a plausible route from understanding harm to changed behaviour; hearing the account does not guarantee remorse or prevent another burglary.
Reintegration means supporting a person's return to accepted social relationships after wrongdoing. John Braithwaite's theoretical work distinguishes disapproval of an act combined with respect for the person from stigmatisation, which treats the person as permanently discredited. His 2000 article explains this distinction as part of reintegrative shaming theory. A community can condemn an offence while retaining a place for the offender; this may help sustain lawful relationships rather than consolidate an excluded identity. This is a theoretical explanation, not a finding that any public expression of shame is beneficial. Braithwaite, “Shame and criminal justice”.
Deserved punishment and other penal aims
Retributive justice justifies punishment by the offender's responsibility for a past wrong. Desert, in this context, means what someone deserves. Proportionality requires the severity of punishment to bear a defensible relationship to the seriousness of the wrongdoing. An account of seriousness must consider responsibility as well as harm: deliberate injury and an injury arising with much less blameworthiness do not automatically deserve the same response.
Retributive justice
The view that wrongdoing can justify deserved, proportionate punishment, with punishment restricted to those responsible for it.
Proportionality also limits punishment. Making a minor offender suffer without limit because the public is angry would contradict the principle. Retribution is therefore distinct from personal revenge, which need not have an impartial procedure or a proportional limit. The philosophical case for deserved punishment remains contested: asserting that suffering is deserved does not remove the need to justify that assertion. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Retributive Justice”.
Several aims can support a penalty, but they supply different reasons for it.
| Aim | Why impose a response? | What would support a claim of success? |
|---|---|---|
| Retribution | The offender deserves a proportionate response to a past wrong. | A justified judgement about responsibility, seriousness and proportionality. |
| Deterrence | The prospect or experience of punishment discourages offending. | Evidence that the threat or experience changes future offending. |
| Incapacitation | Restrictions reduce opportunities to commit further offences, for example through confinement. | Evidence about offending prevented while restrictions operate. |
| Rehabilitation | Support or treatment changes circumstances, skills or behaviour associated with offending. | Evidence of relevant change and its effects on later offending. |
General deterrence concerns discouraging others; individual deterrence concerns discouraging the person punished. Neither follows simply from the fact that a penalty is severe. Similarly, keeping a person in custody may restrict opportunities without showing that they have changed after release. These are differences between mechanisms, rather than a ranking of aims.
One sentence may pursue several purposes. Section 57 of the Sentencing Act 2020 lists punishment, crime reduction, rehabilitation, public protection and reparation as purposes for adult sentencing within its stated scope. It illustrates why a real penal system should not be classified as exclusively retributive or restorative. Sentencing Act 2020, section 57.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account