Retributive and Restorative Justice
Retributive and Restorative Justice
复制标题
报应性司法和恢复性司法
DOI：
10.1007/s10979-007-9116-6
复制
发表时间：
2008
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
M. Platow
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Wenzel;T. Okimoto;N. Feather;M. Platow
恢复性司法作为西方以法院为基础的刑事司法的替代模式的出现可能对司法心理学产生重要影响。有人提出，两种不同的正义观念会影响对违规行为的反应：恢复性正义和报复性正义。惩罚性司法本质上是指通过单方面施加惩罚来修复正义，而恢复性司法则是指通过在双边过程中重申共同的价值共识来修复正义。在违法行为的象征意义中，对地位和权力的关切主要与报复性司法有关，对共同价值观的关切主要与恢复性司法有关。然而，这些过程的核心是当事人对其身份关系的认识，特别是应答者是否认为与罪犯有同一身份。讨论了群体间违法行为的具体情况，以及对未来研究的影响，在打破规则后恢复正义感。
The emergence of restorative justice as an alternative model to Western, court-based criminal justice may have important implications for the psychology of justice. It is proposed that two different notions of justice affect responses to rule-breaking: restorative and retributive justice. Retributive justice essentially refers to the repair of justice through unilateral imposition of punishment, whereas restorative justice means the repair of justice through reaffirming a shared value-consensus in a bilateral process. Among the symbolic implications of transgressions, concerns about status and power are primarily related to retributive justice and concerns about shared values are primarily related to restorative justice. At the core of these processes, however, lies the parties’ construal of their identity relation, specifically whether or not respondents perceive to share an identity with the offender. The specific case of intergroup transgressions is discussed, as are implications for future research on restoring a sense of justice after rule-breaking.