IndexRetributive JusticeSituations that matter Retributive JusticeRestorative JusticeAdvantages of the Restorative Form of JusticeArguments against the Restorative Justice FormComparison between Retributive Justice and Restorative JusticeConclusionThe term justice is defined as that quality of possessing righteousness, equity and restorative justice moral correctness. In most cases, this term is confused with, as well as being used interchangeably, with the word equity. In many situations you want to be treated equally regardless of location; at work, at church, at school, even at home. This is what is commonly identified as justice (Alarid, 2016). There are different types of justice. However, in this article, our focus will be on two types of justice; reparative and retributive. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The purpose of restorative justice is to heal the relationship between offenders (offenders), victims, and the society in which the injustice occurred. Normally, the focus of restorative justice is on the needs of offenders, victims and society. On the basis of this justice, victims normally find themselves assuming essential responsibility in the process. Offenders, on the other hand, are responsible for their actions as a way to repair the harm they have already done to victims (Colnoe, 2015). Retributive justice, on the other hand, is a form of justice whose purpose is to find fault and punish the guilty. Retributive justice believes that punishments for crimes are acceptable as long as the punishments are proportional to the damage done. I find that restorative justice is better than retributive justice, especially when dealing with offenders, victims and society, because of its goal of healing the affected entities. Retributive justice is about finding fault and punishing the guilty. However, both retributive and restorative justice exist to restore victims and offenders to their rightful levels (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 regarding justice. The document would also present a discussion on both restorative and retributive justice and present an ideal justice that can be applied when it is necessary to deal with crimes 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 get extra fruit from their efforts, and individuals who break laws are liable to punishment. Furthermore, individuals deserve fair treatment, treatment that resembles that of others. For example, behaving well will be accompanied by the right to good treatment from other people (Gavrielides, 2015). According to Alarid, (2016), the natives of a society are entitled to enjoy the positive merits associated with the rule of legislation. In line with concepts of fair play, patriotic citizens are required to operate within a country's compensation system. Individuals who seek to gain privileges simply by depending on the rule of law while being unwilling to make necessary sacrifices, such as self-control, are considered free riders. Individuals are thought to have helped themselves to unfair advantages. The State, therefore, endeavors to prevent this as away to preserve the rule of law (Alarid, 2016). In situations where crimes have been committed, people who possess certain benefits may lose them while people who do not deserve the benefits may gain them. They. This implies that punishment takes away undeserved benefits through punishment imposition, which in a certain sense tends to rebalance the damage caused by the wrongdoing. It is suffered like the debt that criminals owe to their colleagues. Therefore, retributive justice in this sense is intended to bring both victims and offenders back to their ideal levels in relation to each other. As such, retributive justice thus becomes backward-looking. The guarantee of punishment is given as feedback to past events of injustice or wrongdoing. Retributive justice aims to strengthen rules that have been violated and rebalance the scales of justice (Rotondi, 2015). Situations that matter retributive justice In a society, it is normal for there to be prolonged conflict. In most cases this involves violence experienced by innocent citizens. Occasionally, violence is carried out systematically, for example in the form of genocide, enslavement or ethnic discrimination. Other criminal acts include rape, murder, torturing a person, or carrying out an event in a dangerous way. In these situations, which place the participating parties “at war,” violation of the law occurs, and this is considered a war crime (Zehr, 2011). Although war has not been officially declared, these barbaric events of murder and genocide constitute an integral part of the violation of human rights and are not acceptable under international law. Many people believe that people who perpetrate such criminal acts should face justice, and this is normally facilitated by international courts and tribunals whose role it is to adjudicate war crimes. The retributive form of justice is one that penalizes human rights violators for their inhumane activities. The act of punishing them is done as a way to enforce the norms of international law and deny human rights violators unfair advantages (Worrall, 2016). Restorative justice This form of justice is normally used interchangeably with standard criminal justice activities, with customary and original origins. justice systems. Justice aims to repair the damage that crime has caused within society. This form of justice is considered effective and for this reason it has been adopted as a significant element of the development of criminal justice in various regions of the globe. Restorative justice can take different forms which may include face-to-face meetings between the offenders and the victim. However, at some times, other public members may be involved in the process (Guthrey, 2015). In this form of justice, members are given the opportunity to discuss the impact of the crime and, on a collective basis, agree on what to do. way in which 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 is primarily intended to inspire healing for victims, compensate for harm, and reintegrate offenders into the community as law-abiding civilians (Alarid, 2016). Some restorative justice concepts hold that individuals should work to repair victimized people. and those most affected should be given the opportunity to participate fully. The government's responsibility, on the other hand, is to maintain good public order while society is required to create and maintain a peacefulimpartial. I consider restorative justice to be an ideal solution to deal with offenders, victims and society as it uses a simple process. Below is a process used by restorative justice (Fiala, 2015); · The first step involves the use of the victim-offender resolution program. In this process, experienced mediators aim to bring the victim and the offender together. This is done specifically to identify the crime and the procedure required to bring the affected entities to rights. · Development of conference programs: This is the second process that resemblesvictim-offender reconciliation. The conference programs involve victims, offenders, their social representatives and family members. · Development of victim-offender panels: Panels are required to bring together the unrelated offender and victim parties, linked by the mutual form of the crime and not the specific offenses that involved the others. · Victim Support Programs: Programs are intended to provide services to the victim of crime to help them recover from harm as well as advance the criminal justice process. Victim support programs are essential as they help lead the victim to forget the misconduct they may have faced and move on with their life. The above programs illustrate how important restorative justice is in dealing with victims, offenders and general society. Restorative justice is an ideal option compared to other forms of justice. Benefits of the Restorative Justice Form The restorative justice form holds offenders accountable for their actions, albeit in a constructive and meaningful way, and this can result in a more maintained restorative justice experience. justice for the victim and for society as a whole. Both the victim and the offender are very gratified by the approach and the results. Offenders become more likely to terminate society and service restitution. There is also some form of bargaining for recidivism (Zehr, 2011). Restorative justice involves several parties. Therefore it does not assign important tasks to the government and criminals. This justice takes into consideration the victims and also society. This move 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 size of the fine imposed, the remedial form measures the degree to which the harm has been repaired or prevented from recurring in the future. This property is an essential advantage of this form of justice as it helps ensure the presence of truth and reconciliation. Furthermore, justice for all is ensured (Gavrielides, 2015). Above all, restorative justice values ​​the essence of social inclusion and initiative in responding to and minimizing crimes. Therefore, the government is relieved from having to deal with crime issues alone. I think this is essential because society will now be able to address the problems arising from crime also at a popular level. The element helps to ensure the development of the society where crime is minimal and the society that avoids engaging in criminal activities (Alarid, 2016). The involvement of the victim and the offender is observed at all times for the benefit of the restorative form of justice. Through this participation, the victim and the perpetrator are given responsibility, which is sometimes decision-making supremacy and the right to be heard. The Restoration entrusts criminals to thebenevolence of judicial systems, and this can go both ways. For example, the offender may be found not guilty or guilty. Therefore, this is essential as it ensures that justice is provided to both offenders and victims (Fiala, 2015). Arguments against the restorative form of justice Although restorative justice is considered ideal in a society due to its benefits, it may be worth reviewing the dark side of this form of justice. However, its disadvantages are minimal, which means that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. For starters, for this form of justice to work, the offender and the victim should communicate about the crime and the consequences. Since some crimes leave the victim defenseless and vulnerable (especially if violent), anxiety and fear can cause communication of the case is encouraged. Furthermore, communication can expose privacy, especially for victims of rape and assault because they should discuss the outcomes of the crime and how it affected them (Colnoe, 2015). Elsewhere, critics of restorative justice argue that this form of justice fails to reduce recidivism among violent criminals. On the other hand, statistics reveal that offenders who engage in a form of restorative justice are less likely to be compensated unless the system is perfect (Zehr, 2011). Some people in society believe that the form of restorative justice avoids punishing offenders fairly and equitably. Of course, this punishment will depend on the type of crime committed, the age of the criminal and the location of the sentence. For example, the way in which the restorative form of justice is applied in the judicial setting is different from its application outside the justice system, and the way in which it is applied in juvenile courts is also different from that in adult courts (Worrall, 2016). Retributive and Restorative Justice In order for us to understand the underlying differences between these two forms of justice, it may be helpful to first understand that the Canadian criminal justice system operates on the basis of the retributive form of justice. Canada, as a system of administering justice, punishes offenders. This is because he is the ultimate victim of crimes and, therefore, possesses the authority to punish people the state deems criminals. This type of domination-related justice is considered an approach to punish "victimless crimes": for example, drug traffickers actually suffer harsh punishment. When a country operates on the basis of retributive justice, the country is considered the victim (Colnoe, 2015). According to retributivism, which is a central pillar of the retributive form of justice, the reason for punishment is attributed to the fact that the country the wrongdoer deserves to be punished. This statement may seem simple, unless you look at the underlying implication that it constitutes an essential aspect regarding morality and law. Retributivism requires that retribution be the central logic of law. The retributive form of justice presupposes that there are rules whose purpose is first and foremost to guarantee the good morals of people. Crime, on the other hand, despite being victimless, damages society. As such, when a person violates the law, he or she offends the norms that govern the state and the norms that regulate the behavior of citizens (Fiala, 2015). The reparative form, on the other side of the spectrum, is anchored in different logical and philosophical totality. It is considered the philosophy and social movement that offers a completely different approach to dealing with crime and punishment. Compared to retributive justice in which the State is the main victim of a criminal act and punishes i.