Do Retributive and Restorative Justice Processes Address Different Symbolic Concerns?

Abstract

In support of a unitary conceptualization of retributive justice (justice through the imposition of punishment) and restorative justice (justice through dialogue aimed at consensus), three studies using hypothetical and recalled experiences of victimization found that people's endorsement of, and satisfaction with, either justice notion depends on the symbolic meaning of the transgression. In Study 1, perceiving the transgression as a status/power violation was uniquely related to the endorsement of retributive justice, whereas perceiving it as a violation of shared values was uniquely related to restorative justice. In Study 2, motivation to restore status/power was related to retributive responses, whereas motivation to restore value consensus with the offender was uniquely related to restorative responses. In Study 3, a scenario experiment, respondents called for greater additional sanction when the applied justice process (retributive vs. restorative) did not fit the salient meaning of the transgressions compared to when it did (status/power vs. values).

Retribution as Revenge and Retribution as Just Deserts

“…Consistent with this, retribution is often measured as a mix of items capturing some of these dimensions (e.g. Okimoto, Wenzel, & Feather, 2011;Orth, 2003;Wenzel, Okimoto, & Cameron, 2012).…”

“…Punishment symbolically labels the offence as wrong, thereby restoring people's faith in shared values. Importantly, both status/power (Okimoto et al, 2011;Wenzel & Thielmann, 2006;Wenzel et al, 2012) and value (Okimoto et al, 2011;Vidmar, 2000;Wenzel et al, 2012) restoration motives have consistently been found to relate to retributive responses to crime. In our study, we hypothesise that:…”

Restoring the Victim: Emotional Reactions, Justice Beliefs, and Support for Reparation and Punishment

“…Transgression victims prefer the use of restorative procedures to more punitive approaches when they share an identity with the offender and/or desire to establish consensus about the violated value (e.g., Wenzel et al 2012;Wenzel et al 2008Wenzel et al , 2010. And, people have lessened negative emotional experiences and calmer physiological reactions with restorative, as compared to retributive, responses to imagined transgressions against them (Witvliet et al 2008).…”

Activating school bonds: a study of truanting young people in the context of the Ability School Engagement Program (ASEP)

“…Through this lens, truancy or 'unexplained school absenteeism' (Kearney, 2008b) is an expression of a weak belief about the importance of going to school. Establishing a shared belief through the application of restorative process becomes the initial step for taking on the responsibility to address truancy (see Drewery, 2004;Okimoto et al, 2009;Wenzel et al, 2012). At the ASEP conference, the process begins with the ASEP participants sharing their perspectives on why there is a truancy problem.…”

“…The restorative process is theorised to establish a shared concern among the conference participants about the problem behaviour and motivate the group to work together alongside the person who displays the behaviour towards change (Drewery, 2004;Wenzel, Okimoto, & Cameron, 2012). According to the theory of TPP, police mobilises a third party's legal powers, in this case, the school's, to increase deterrence of delinquency and raise awareness of legal responsibilities , Mazerolle & Ransley, 2006.…”