Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Do Retributive and Restorative Justice Processes Address Different Symbolic Concerns?

  • Published:
Critical Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In support of a unitary conceptualization of retributive justice (justice through the imposition of punishment) and restorative justice (justice through dialogue aimed at consensus), three studies using hypothetical and recalled experiences of victimization found that people’s endorsement of, and satisfaction with, either justice notion depends on the symbolic meaning of the transgression. In Study 1, perceiving the transgression as a status/power violation was uniquely related to the endorsement of retributive justice, whereas perceiving it as a violation of shared values was uniquely related to restorative justice. In Study 2, motivation to restore status/power was related to retributive responses, whereas motivation to restore value consensus with the offender was uniquely related to restorative responses. In Study 3, a scenario experiment, respondents called for greater additional sanction when the applied justice process (retributive vs. restorative) did not fit the salient meaning of the transgressions compared to when it did (status/power vs. values).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The description of Sarah varied in order to manipulate her background; however, this manipulation was irrelevant to the present purpose and will be ignored. Inclusion of this factor in the present analyses did not impact on the results.

References

  • Alicke, M. D. (1992). Culpable causation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 368–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, W., & Walster, E. (1975). Equity with the world: The trans-relational effects of equity and inequity. Sociometry, 38, 474–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2000). Self-esteem, narcissism, and aggression: Does violence result from low self-esteem or from threatened egotism? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 26–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazemore, G. (1998). Restorative justice and earned redemption: Communities, victims, and offender reintegration. American Behavioral Scientist, 41, 768–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazemore, G., & Umbreit, M. (2001). A comparison of four restorative conferencing models. In U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Ed.), OJJDP Juvenile justice bulletin (Vol. February 2001). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

  • Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1996). Beyond distrust: “Getting even” And the need for revenge. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 246–260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J. (1998). Restorative justice. In M. Tonry (Ed.), The handbook of crime and punishment (pp. 323–344). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callan, M. J., Ellard, J. H., & Nicol, J. E. (2006). The belief in a just world and immanent justice reasoning in adults. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1646–1658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsmith, K. M. (2006). The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 437–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsmith, K. M., Darley, J. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2002). Why do we punish?: Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 284–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsmith, K. M., Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2008). The paradoxical consequences of revenge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1316–1324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christie, N. (1977). Conflicts as property. British Journal of Criminology, 17, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, R. L. (2001). Provocations of restorative justice. Social Justice Research, 14, 209–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, K. (2000). Revisiting the relationship between retributive and restorative justice. In H. Strang & J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative justice: Philosophy to practice (pp. 33–54). Aldershot: Ashgate/Dartmouth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darley, J. M., & Pittman, T. S. (2003). The psychology of compensatory and retributive justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 324–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhami, M. K. (2012). Offer and acceptance of apology in victim-offender mediation. Critical Criminology. doi:10.1007/s10612-011-9149-5.

  • Duff, R. A. (2001). Punishment, communication, and community. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duff, R. A. (2002). Restorative punishment and punitive restoration. In L. Walgrave (Ed.), Restorative justice and the law (pp. 82–100). Cullompton, UK: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feather, N. T. (1996). Reactions to penalties for an offense in relation to authoritarianism, values, perceived responsibility, perceived seriousness, and deservingness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 571–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 894–914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garvey, S. P. (2003). Restorative justice, punishment, and atonement. Utah Law Review, 2003, 303–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gollwitzer, M., & Denzler, M. (2009). What makes revenge sweet: Seeing the offender suffer or delivering a message? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 840–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gromet, D. M. (2012). Restoring the victim: Emotional reactions, justice beliefs, and support for reparation and punishment. Critical Criminology. doi:10.1007/s10612-011-9146-8.

  • Gromet, D. M., & Darley, J. (2006). Restoration and retribution: How including retributive components affects the acceptability of restorative justice processes. Social Justice Research, 19, 395–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gromet, D. M., & Darley, J. M. (2009). Punishment and beyond: Achieving justice through the satisfaction of multiple goals. Law and Society Review, 43(1), 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, R., & Emler, N. P. (1981). Retributive justice. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 125–144). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. Prison Journal, 85, 127–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazare, A. (2004). On apology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, T. F. (1998). Restorative justice: An overview. A report by the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate. London: Home Office.

  • Miller, D. T. (2001). Disrespect and the experience of injustice. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 527–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, A. (2002). Critiquing the critics: A brief response to critics of restorative justice. British Journal of Criminology, 42, 596–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet, R. E., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of honour: The psychology of violence in the south. Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohbuchi, K.-I., Kameda, M., & Agarie, N. (1989). Apology as aggression control: Its role in mediating appraisal of and response to harm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 219–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okimoto, T. G., & Wenzel, M. (2008). The symbolic meaning of transgressions: Towards a unifying framework of justice restoration. In K. Hegtvedt & J. Clay-Warner (Eds.), Advances in group processes (pp. 291–326). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okimoto, T. G., & Wenzel, M. (2009). Punishment as restoration of group and offender values following a transgression: Value consensus through symbolic labelling and offender reform. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 346–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okimoto, T. G., Wenzel, M., & Feather, N. T. (2009). Beyond compensation and punishment: Conceptualizing restorative justice and exploring its determinants. Social Justice Research, 22, 156–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okimoto, T. G., Wenzel, M., & Feather, N. T. (in press). Retribution and restoration as general orientations toward justice. European Journal of Personality.

  • Okimoto, T. G., Wenzel, M., & Platow, M. J. (2010). Restorative justice: Seeking a shared identity in dynamic intra-group contexts. In E. Mannix, M. Neale, & E. Mullen (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams: Fairness and groups (Vol. 13, pp. 205–242). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C. (1963). The idea of justice and the problem of argument. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Retzinger, S. M., & Scheff, T. J. (1996). Strategy for community conferences: Emotions and social bonds. In B. Galaway & J. Hudson (Eds.), Restorative justice: International perspectives (pp. 315–336). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. V., & Stalans, L. J. (2004). Restorative sentencing: Exploring the views of the public. Social Justice Research, 17, 315–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, P. H., & Darley, J. M. (1995). Justice, liability, and blame: Community views and the criminal law. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandel, M. J. (2010). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

  • Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., Angel, C., Woods, D., Barnes, G. C., Bennett, S., et al. (2005). Effects of face-to-face restorative justice on victims of crime in four randomized, controlled trials. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 367–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strang, H. (2002). Repair or revenge: Victims and restorative justice. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strang, H., Sherman, L., Angel, C. M., Woods, D. J., Bennett, S., Newbury-Birch, D., et al. (2006). Victim evaluations of face-to-face restorative justice experiences: A quasi-experimental analysis. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 281–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2006). Restorative justice and procedural justice: Dealing with rule breaking. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 307–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Jost, J. T. (2007). Psychology and the law: Reconciling normative and descriptive accounts of social justice and system legitimacy. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 807–825). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N. (2000). Retribution and revenge. In J. Sanders & V. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of justice research in law (pp. 31–63). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N., & Miller, D. T. (1980). Socialpsychological processes underlying attitudes toward legal punishment. Law and Society Review, 14, 565–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, M. (2004). A social categorisation approach to distributive justice. European Review of Social Psychology, 15, 219–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Feather, N. T., & Platow, M. J. (2008). Retributive and restorative justice. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 375–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Feather, N. T., & Platow, M. J. (2010). Justice through consensus: Shared identity and the preference for a restorative notion of justice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 909–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, M., & Thielmann, I. (2006). Why we punish in the name of justice: Just desert versus value restoration and the role of social identity. Social Justice Research, 19, 450–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zehr, H. (1985). Retributive justice, restorative justice. New Perpectives on Crime and Justice, vol. 4: Occasional papers of the MCC Canada Victim Offender Ministries Program and the MCC, U.S. Office of Criminal Justice. Elkhart, Ind.: Mennonite Central Committee; Kitchener, Ontario: Canada Victim Offender Ministries Program.

  • Zehr, H. (2002). Then little book of restorative justice. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from the Australian Research Council, DP0557634.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia

    Michael Wenzel

  2. The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

    Tyler G. Okimoto

  3. Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    Kate Cameron

Authors
  1. Michael Wenzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tyler G. Okimoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kate Cameron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Wenzel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T.G. & Cameron, K. Do Retributive and Restorative Justice Processes Address Different Symbolic Concerns?. Crit Crim 20, 25–44 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-011-9147-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-011-9147-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation