Restorative justice techniques have existed in indigenous communities for many years, even predating retributive justice practices. The focus on community-based justice and the process of healing was essential for the existence of smaller, cohesive societies. This practice is not limited to smaller groups of people. Restorative justice has grown in popularity within the last half of a century, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was on the forefront of the paradigm shift of the way modern civilization views and evaluates our current justice system. Retributive justice is the most common practice today. This style of justice is not focused on healing and reconditioning the relationship between the victim, perpetrator and community. It
…show more content…
Gibson attributes the success of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to six distinguishable reasons. For the TRC to be effective, it was necessary for the events to capture the attention of a large mass of people. The truth must be able to permeate through to all members of society. A concern, he states, is that truth-telling events are not as efficient at capturing the attention of a large group. Gibson says that since these events were unhindered by “adversary-style” proceedings (retributive technique), they were able to be interpreted to a wider audience. This is another benefit of restorative justice. The difference between a retributive proceeding and a restorative proceeding is quite simply, the truth. In a retributive system, there is a clear accuser and victim, and the accuser loses nothing if they lie, so it is obviously most beneficial for them to not tell the truth. Retributive justice focuses on figuring out the truth in a very ineffective way. Whereas in restorative justice, the healing process is the main focus, and the truth is a central pillar to healing. Deceiving the victim and other members of the community does no good for any party involved. A downfall of restorative justice is addressed in the conditions to be granted amnesty. This downfall is the failure to tell the truth, and in order to be granted amnesty, the perpetrator must be willing to be truthful. If they fail to do this, it is not restorative justice that failed them, but rather themselves. If all parties do not commit to every condition that makes restorative justice effective, there is no way it can
Gibson attributes the success of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to six distinguishable reasons. For the TRC to be effective, it was necessary for the events to capture the attention of a large mass of people. The truth must be able to permeate through to all members of society. A concern, he states, is that truth-telling events are not as efficient at capturing the attention of a large group. Gibson says that since these events were unhindered by “adversary-style” proceedings (retributive technique), they were able to be interpreted to a wider audience. This is another benefit of restorative justice. The difference between a retributive proceeding and a restorative proceeding is quite simply, the truth. In a retributive system, there is a clear accuser and victim, and the accuser loses nothing if they lie, so it is obviously most beneficial for them to not tell the truth. Retributive justice focuses on figuring out the truth in a very ineffective way. Whereas in restorative justice, the healing process is the main focus, and the truth is a central pillar to healing. Deceiving the victim and other members of the community does no good for any party involved. A downfall of restorative justice is addressed in the conditions to be granted amnesty. This downfall is the failure to tell the truth, and in order to be granted amnesty, the perpetrator must be willing to be truthful. If they fail to do this, it is not restorative justice that failed them, but rather themselves. If all parties do not commit to every condition that makes restorative justice effective, there is no way it can