Restorative justice fits human nature more than retribution does

As recognised by ancestral wisdom and Indigenous practices, our need to repair relationships is a deep-rooted instinct

https://psyche.co/ideas/restorative-justice-fits-human-nature-more-than-retribution-does





Picture yourself on a bus. You’ve had a terrible day, your mood is far from ideal. Suddenly, you feel a sharp pain in your foot: someone has just stepped on it with a pair of heavy hiking boots. Annoyed, you immediately look towards the person who did it, but you can’t see their facial expression or hear what they have to say. You feel unsettled. A short while later, the bus stops and the driver approaches you. They reassure you that the person who stepped on your foot has been promptly removed from the bus and won’t be allowed back on again for a year. This is the approach of the traditional penal system.

It is based on retributivism, the idea that wrongdoers deserve to be punished for their crimes. Under this system, justice is served when proportionate suffering is imposed on the offender, which essentially takes the form of exclusion from society. Prison is not just a place where offenders are secluded to keep society safe; it also carries the symbolic meaning of deserved social rejection. The whole process of achieving justice through punishment involves little or no real communication between wrongdoers and victims, who are instead required to delegate the management of their conflict to third parties (professionals, state institutions and so forth). As highlighted by the criminologist Nils Christie in his work ‘Conflicts as Property’ (1977), the parties involved are ‘robbed’ of their conflicts, which are instead left in the hands of those who are not directly involved. This system rests on a fundamental premise, rooted in both psychology and anthropology: individuals are intrinsically unable to resolve disputes without external intervention, and this external intervention must be punitive in order to meet society’s demands. A wrongdoer must pay for the harm caused, and our culture assumes that the only way to achieve that end is through imposing suffering. As a matter of fact, traditional criminal justice expresses the human drive for revenge. It is indeed institutionalised revenge.

Now, let’s return to the bus. But this time imagine that, after having your foot stepped on, you can immediately identify the person responsible. You see the worry and embarrassment on their face, and you hear their words of concern and regret: ‘I’m so sorry. I didn’t do it on purpose. Are you all right?’ This genuine expression of remorse will cause your nerves – previously as taut as violin strings – to relax, perhaps even allowing for an understanding smile. No need to rely on the driver. The situation is resolved, and nobody is removed from the bus. This is the approach of restorative justice (RJ).



The core of RJ has little to do with classical theories of punishment. In fact, its justification lies beyond the concept of punishment, as it seeks primarily to address harms, resolve conflicts and repair relationships. RJ is about healing, mutual communication and empathy; it focuses on needs more than deserts. There is no place for punishing wrongdoers in the restorative paradigm, because the very idea of crime takes another meaning: it is not the result of an evil mind freely choosing to commit evil actions. Rather, it is a damaged relationship. As a result, justice itself is understood as relational and implies restoring social connections, healing social wounds. RJ seems also to be the bearer of an opposing idea of human nature, in which people are seen as essentially capable of healing relationships and willing to get things right, and justice is achieved when enabling this to happen. So, advocating for RJ also means supporting and expressing a more optimistic view of human nature.

snip