Abstract
Abstract Restorative justice, aimed at restoring human relations instead of just punishing offenders, is often defended with reference to biblical values like reconciliation, forgiveness, and mercy. Advocates of retributivism, which is the philosophy that underlies the practice of punishing perpetrators with the sole goal of inflicting hardship on them, regularly ridicule such defenses. In response we will not directly defend restorative justice, but critically inquire in the main theoretical arguments with which advocates of retributivism seek to rationalize their view. We point out the weaknesses of these arguments and why we believe that restorative procedures can do much better in serving the goals of (criminal) justice.
Highlights
Against a dominant culture which favors punitive retribution advocates of restorative justice try to establish procedures that enhance reconciliation and rehabilitation instead of simple punishment
What is to be made about the complaint that mercy will always be unfair to those who do not receive it, because it discriminates between offenders whose penal desert is relevantly similar?96 According to restorative justice fairness is more than equity
Nor do we suggest that mercy or forgiveness should be unconditional
Summary
Against a dominant culture which favors punitive retribution (leading in the United States to the mass incarceration of alleged criminals1) advocates of restorative justice try to establish procedures that enhance reconciliation and rehabilitation instead of simple punishment. Prominent spokesmen of retributivism like Michael Moore, Anthony Duff and Andrew von Hirsch have written lengthy warnings against the restorative paradigm though.[12] Moore even ridicules those who support restorative justice with religious arguments by characterizing Jesus’ protests against the stoning of an adulteress as a ‘pretty clumsy moral philosophy’.13. We contend that theology has a responsibility in publicly addressing and criticizing the way influential criminologists, legal theorists and other opinion makers try to rationalize punitive retribution as ‘right’ and ‘just’ Such an address should take a form that is accessible to the theologically uninformed public.[14] Our arguments will make sparse use of biblical-theological or dogmatic ideas. Christianity’s alternative interpretation of reality that competes with the story of the liberal secularism that underlies retributivism need not be convincing only to believers
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
