Murder, Mercy: Retributive Justice and Restorative Justice

THE CASE STUDY OF MURDER AND MERCY
By:
Institutional Affiliation:
The Case Study of Murder and Mercy
Background of Case Study
In the case study provided, “Murder and Mercy”, the story of the brutal death of a British Columbian teen named Reena Virk. On the day of her death, Virk was lured to a secluded area and beaten by a group of teens, among them included Ellard. An autopsy clearly revealed that Virk was covered in several bruises and had cigarette burns on her forehead. For Virk’s parents, the Supreme Court’s ruling ended into a painful long legal journey that took closer to a decade. The author of the material clearly points on how Virk’s parents, Suman and Manjit did what was considered as unthinkable by forgiving one of the killers of their daughter, a journey that clearly depicts the essence of restorative justice.
After the death of their daughter, Suman, the mother of three is seen speaking to Glowatski who was convicted for the murder of her 14-year-old daughter. Following her daughter’s death, Suman may have been destroyed by the helplessness, rage, and sorrow, but found a city in which warm conversations helped in the healing process. In this regard, it is essential to consider that Suman’s conversation with one of her daughter’s killers is perceived as a remarkable story of resilience and compassion and a testament of the manner in which people have the capacity to triumph over the rage of extraordinary tragedies and violence (Veale, 2013). This paper therefore seeks to conduct a study aimed at revealing the meaning of Restorative Justice in modern society. On the other hand, the paper will conduct a comparison of the major differences between Retributive Justice and Restorative Justice and elaborate the use of Restorative Justice through various illustrations from the case study provided.
The Meaning of Restorative Justice in Modern Society
According to Goodstein& Butterfield (2010), restorative justice is considered as an approach to justice that ensures that crime is personalized by having the offenders and victims mediate through restituted agreements to their satisfaction, an aspect that involves the community as well. In other words, it is essential to consider that restorative justice is an approach of viewing justice by putting emphasis on repairing the harms caused by a crime or conflict, as evident in the case of the brutal death of a British Columbian teen named Reena Virk. Given this, it is essential to consider that crime is understood through this approach as a violation of relationships and people, an aspect that disrupts the peace within the community (Van Camp & Wemmers, 2016). Restorative justice, therefore, provides an inclusivity and collaboration between the participants or offenders in a crime to the community affected by the crime with the aim of finding a lasting solution that seeks to repair the harms caused and promote unity and cohesion within the community.
Toews (2013) posits that the underlying values of restorative justice processes are based on the respect for the dignity of the individuals affected by a crime or dispute. In this regard, priority is granted to the need to address the human needs of the involved parties by empowering them to freely communicate their feelings and thoughts in an honest and open way. This clearly indicates that the goal of restorative justice systems remains in building and establishing understanding and to encourage accountability, thus providing an opportunity for healing. A restorative justice process as evident in the case study provided encourages the offenders to take full responsibility for the actions and harmful behaviors in a peaceful and meaningful way, thus helping in gaining insight into the effects and causes of behavior on others and to change an individual’s behavior that are accepted back within the community.
This process therefore provides the victims with a forum to ask the desired questions, receive answers, get an understanding, and explain the direct impact of a crime and them, an aspect that contributes to the outcomes of the process. This process therefore results in the victims receiving restitution, pardon, apology, and services that are related to reparation. Restorative justice, therefore, creates a safer environment through which the victims may seek closure, thus providing the community with the potential to articulate its values and expectations in understanding the underlying cause of a crime and in determining effective approaches that need to be initiated in a bid to repair the damages caused (Mcgeorge, 2016). This approach therefore contributes to the well being of the offended parties and the community, thus potentially reducing future crimes. A restorative justice process is an approach in which the parties with a stake in an offense, (the offender, victims, and the community members), voluntarily participate and are supported with the assistance of an impartial and fair facilitator in discussions surrounding an offense. The primary rationale for this approach remains in understanding the underlying causes and effects of those harmed by a crime, and addresses the needs of these parties through a reparation and healing process.
In this case, Newton (2016) supports the fact that restorative justice is a process through which the involved parties in an offense or crime come together in resolving the issues collectively, including the manner in which the aftermaths of the offence and its implications would be dealt with in the future. This remains evident in the case study provided since the author of the material clearly points on how Virk`s parents Suman and Manjit did what was considered as unthinkable by forgiving one of the killers of their daughter, a journey that clearly depicts the essence of restorative justice. After the death of their daughter, Suman, the mother of three is seen speaking to Glowatski who was convicted for the murder of her 14-year-old daughter. The primary rationale for a restorative justice system is therefore pegged on attending to the needs of the victimized families, prevention re-offenses by initiating efforts aimed at reintegrating the offenders in the community, ensuring the offenders are in a position to resume their active responsibilities for the actions, the recreation of a working community that supports the rehabilitation of the victims and offenders, and active in the prevention of crimes (Clark, 2014). In other words, the central purpose of a restorative justice system is driven towards restoring the victims, the offenders of a law abiding life, and the damages caused by crime in a community.
Comparisons of the Major Differences between Retributive Justice and Restorative Justice
As established in this paper, restorative justice is considered as an approach to justice that ensures that crime is personalized by having the offenders and victims mediate through restituted agreements to their satisfaction, an aspect that involves the community as well. A restorative justice process is an approach in which the parties with a stake in an offense, (the offender, victims, and the community members), voluntarily participate and are supported with the assistance of an impartial and fair facilitator in discussions surrounding an offense. On the other hand, the retributive justice approach infers to a theory within the justice system that is primarily founded on the idea of instilling punishments for offenses (Darley & Pittman, 2013). In other terms, this process is inferred to as a system of justice that centers and focuses on the punishment of offenders as opposed to their rehabilitation. Traditionally, the retributive justice approach is defined as a theory of justice that primarily views punishment as the best alternative and response to criminal activities or in other words, a morally acceptable response to dealing with crime.
It is however significant to keep in mind that the retributive justice approach emphasizes on the initiation of punishment that is proportional and reasonable to the crime caused and its severity. Retributive justice in this case has a more moral characteristic since it seeks to provide psychological and mental satisfaction and benefits to the community and victims affected by a crime. Furthermore, the retributive justice theory ensures that the provided and specified punishments are equally applied to every offender, depending on the nature and gravity of the crime committed (Ball, 2013). In retributive justice, unlike the restorative justice system, a forum of discussion is not provided or the involvement of the perpetrators of victims in the community. In other words, a retributive justice system connotes that the offenders who engage in a crime or other fraudulent activities commit such crimes against the state and therefore violate the laws of the land and the moral codes of a state. The primary goals of the theory of retributive justice are not in reparation, rehabilitation, restoration or the prevention of future crimes and offenses within the community. It is instead based on punishment and the return of the offenders to a proportionate and suitable punishment that is in line with the gravity of the crime committed.
According to Sherman et al (2015), retributive justice remains the most practiced system of justice in the United States of America. The justice system in the US is therefore oriented towards punishing the offenders, an aspect that fails to make the victims whole again. In restorative justice, the primary focus in placed in the victim. In this regard, it is significant to denote that any penalties assessed on the offenders are regarded as the least partly paid by the victim while the punishment of the offender is perceived as a secondary goal (Schroeder et al, 2012). Retributive systems in some occasions are considered to have some restorative components in as much as these aspects fail to work well. Through this, the offenders are required to make payments for the restitution of a victim in addition to the fines imposed on them even when most of these fines are never paid; an aspect that is of no different with restitution.
The Difference between Restorative Justice and Retributive Justice
First and foremost, is it vital to consider that the restorative justice system views criminal activities as acts against the community and its inhabitants, an aspect that varies from the retributive justice system that considers criminal activities as acts against the state and the violation of a state’s moral code of conduct and laws. On the other hand, the element of restorative justice primarily bases its focus on the rehabilitation of offenders through a process that provided reparation and healing to the victims for the harms and crimes caused. Contrarily, the retributive justice system on the other hand puts its focus on punishment, an approach that is considered as suitable and proportionate to the crimes committed. The communities and the victims are perceived as central to the process of a restorative justice system, whereas their roles are considered as limited or virtually non-existent within the process of a retributive justice system.
According to Wenzel et al (2014), the r...