Retributive and Restorative Justice |
| |
Authors: | Michael Wenzel Tyler G Okimoto Norman T Feather Michael J Platow |
| |
Institution: | (1) School of Psychology, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia;(2) School of Psychology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia |
| |
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. |
| |
Keywords: | Retributive justice Restorative justice Transgressions Status/power Values Identity |
本文献已被 PubMed SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|