Rectificatory and Restorative Justice Paradigms

A Comparative Analysis

Abstract

Injuries caused by crime and wrongdoings require to be redressed in the interest of mankind and preservation of society, for crime limits peace, order, harmony and progress. It harms relationships between individuals, perpetuates injustice and inequality and ultimately diminishes the joy of life in the society. To right the wrong caused by crime, Aristotle opines that rectificatory or corrective justice be resorted to; in that wise, the concern of the judge will be to restore equality between the parties whose relationship or transaction has fallen into a state of inequality. To remove the inequality, the judge punishes the offender by taking from him the excess he unjustifiably obtained and returns same to the victim. By so doing, equality is restored. For Howard Zehr however, restorative justice makes a better alternative as it focuses on healing injured relationships and crime is harm to individual persons and their relationships. To make things right, restorative justice is concerned with the needs of all stakeholders (victim, offender, and community), healing, accountability, and restoration of the pre-crime cordiality between conflicting parties. Aristotle and Zehr in their respective theories aim at making things right ultimately but between the two one ought to be more appropriate; which one is? Restorative justice seems more appropriate yet it has challenges that make it insufficient, hence, the advocacy for a complementary relationship between rectificatory and restorative justice paradigms