Restorative justice

Restorative justice can be considered to be the opposite of retributive justice. It seeks to redefine crime as being a violation of people and relationships (injury toward other people), rather than a violation of the state (offense against a state). It involves the victim, the offender and the community being involved together in looking for solutions, promoting repair, reconciliation and reassurance. It seeks to have issues resolved through understanding and dialogue. Proponents of restorative justice say it is directed at recognising the victim's injury, promoting healing, and reducing fears that might have crystallized between the victim and the offender. It also could help the victim to forget the past (if not forgive the offender) and to move on in life. Offenders meeting and communicating with their victims might help them to take responsibility for their actions and avoid further offense. One criticism of restrorative justice is that it is difficult when the offender is unknown. In addition encouraging criminal defendants to atone for their crimes, such as by providing lesser sentences to defendants that confess and express remorse, may be unfair to a possibly innocent defendant that wishes to argue either that he or she had no part in the crime or that the level of criminal responsibility is less than the state has asserted. For example, in the People's Republic of China, the emphasis that the state and society places on restoring social harmony, reeducating the offender, and in having the offender show attonement has been criticized both internally and externally for creating a system which strongly penalizes the accused for asserting their innocence, relies far too much on unreliable confessions, which in turn leads to the illegal use of torture to close cases. Comparison of Justice Systems - Current Thoughts and Practices {| border="1" cellpadding="2"\n|Retributive Justice:\n|Restorative Justice:\n|-\n|Crime is violation of state (e.g., Texas vs. Lee)\n|One person harms another - direct responsibility\n|-\n|Focus on blame\n|Focus on problem-solving\n|-\n|Adversarial relationship (lawyers fight it out)\n|Dialog and negotiation (victim & offender)\n|-\n|Pain/punishment\n|Restitution/restoration\n|-\n|Interpersonal conflicts are obscured - Individual vs. State\n|Conflict recognized and valued - solutions sought\n|-\n|One social injury replaced by another\n|Focus on repair of social injury\n|-\n|Competitive lawyers and points of view\n|Discovery and social interests served\n|-\n|Victim mostly ignored and sidelined\n|Victim rights affirmed\n|-\n|Offender passive (does the time)\n|Offender to take responsibility & make restitution\n|-\n|Offender merely has to take punishment\n|Must learn impact of their crime and how to make right\n|-\n|Purely legal - devoid of moral, social, economic, etc.\n|Whole context must be considered\n|-\n|Debt to state is abstract\n|Debt is to victim with state facilitating\n|-\n|Stigma of crime is unremovable\n|Removed through restoration of Shalom (peace in the land)\n|-\n|No repentance or forgiveness\n|Possibility of both\n|-\n|Depends on a representative\n|Direct involvement\n|-\n|Fear and ignorance\n|Courage and knowledge\n|-\n|Punitive model is broken\n|Evaluate and replace with alternative sentencing\n|-\n|All of society pays for prisons and associated costs - lousy return on the dollar\n|Society pays for treatment and resolution - good return on the dollar\n|} healing justice, Psychiatric imprisonment\nCategory:Criminal law