Retributive and restorative justice.

Abstract

The emergence of restorative justice as an alternative model to Western, court-based criminal justice may have important implications for the psychology of justice. It is proposed that two different notions of justice affect responses to rule-breaking: restorative and retributive justice. Retributive justice essentially refers to the repair of justice through unilateral imposition of punishment, whereas restorative justice means the repair of justice through reaffirming a shared value-consensus in a bilateral process. Among the symbolic implications of transgressions, concerns about status and power are primarily related to retributive justice and concerns about shared values are primarily related to restorative justice. At the core of these processes, however, lies the parties' construal of their identity relation, specifically whether or not respondents perceive to share an identity with the offender. The specific case of intergroup transgressions is discussed, as are implications for future research on restoring a sense of justice after rule-breaking.

When and by whom are apologies considered? The effects of relationship and victim/observer standing on Japanese people’s forgiveness

“…Of the two parties, the victims unarguably take the central role in deciding on forgiveness based on the degree that their material and psychological resources are damaged or restored (Shnabel & Nadler, 2008). But in an outbreak of a transgression, not only the victims, but observers also likely engage in punishment (Fehr & Fischbacher, 2004) and forgiveness (Brown, Wohl, & Exline, 2008)-especially when they identify with a victim or feel that the moral values they internalize are threatened (Brown et al, 2008;Carlsmith & Darley, 2008;Wenzel, Okimoto, Feather, & Platow, 2008). To date, a number of studies have directly pitted the responses of victims and observers, revealing that victims, at times, may be more inclined than third-party observers to forgive those who have hurt them (Cheung & Olson, 2013;Cooney, Allan, Allan, McKillop, & Drake, 2011;Green, Burnette, & Davis, 2008;Hashimoto & Karasawa, 2010).…”

“…One form of such threat could be physical; people would expect greater chances of future interactions with a relationally proximal transgressor, conducing to higher risks of oneself being victimized in the future. People can also perceive a more symbolic form of threat since a transgression signifies a breach into the moral values shared by oneself as well as one's community (Wenzel et al, 2008); an immorality of a relationally close member who ought to be sharing the same values would pose a great threat to the validity of one's values and the order of the community. In reaction to both of these types of threats, one would need to assess the morality of the transgressor to confirm that she shares the group's values and is unlikely to repeat the transgression.…”

Amalan restoraktif dalam program perlindungan dan pemulihan remaja hamil luar nikah di Malaysia

“…Intipati proses dialog ini adalah menjurus ke arah membuatkan pesalah bertanggungjawab di atas kemudaratan/kerosakan yang disebabkan mereka, berusaha mengubah/memperbaikinya, menunjukkan penyesalan dan menawarkan permohonan maaf (Wenzel et al, 2008). Menurut Dzur (2003b) segmen dialog ini tidak melibatkan institusi pengadilan atau pemulihan rasmi atau formal di mana ianya tidak didominasi oleh mana-mana profesional dan prosedur-prosedur yang telah ditetapkan sebagaimana dalam sistem pengadilan rasmi.…”

Teaching applied psychology at the University of Adelaide: A personal view

“…I managed to attract a highly talented post-doctoral researcher to the project, Tyler Okimoto, who had just finished his PhD at New York University under the supervision of Tom Tyler. Even following the end of the project, with Tyler moving on to Yale and then the University of Queensland, we have continued our immensely rewarding and productive research collaboration and developed further our justice restoration theory (as it has been coined) (Wenzel, Okimoto, Feather, & Platow, 2008).…”