Justice through consensus: Shared identity and the preference for a restorative notion of justice

Abstract

We propose a concept of restorative justice as a sense of justice deriving from consensus about, and the reaffirmation of, values violated by an offence (in contrast to punishment-based retributive justice). Victims should be more likely to seek restorative justice (and less likely retributive justice) when they perceive to share a relevant identity with the offender. In Study 1, when the relevant identity (university affiliation) shared with the offender was made salient (vs. not), participants found a consensus-based response more justice-restoring. In Study 2, when the group (company) shared with the offender was cohesive (vs. not), participants more strongly endorsed a restorative justice philosophy and, mediated by this, responded in consensus-restoring ways. In Study 3, when the offender was an ingroup (vs. outgroup) member, participants more strongly endorsed a restorative justice philosophy, fully mediated by sadness emotions. Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.When somebody violates a rule or law, we often feel an urge to pay them back, to retaliate or punish. Indeed, our sense of justice may demand us to do so. This notion of justice is widely understood as just desert or retributive justice and, in a way, is also institutionalized in our Western criminal justice system. However, in recent decades an alternative paradigm has emerged in criminology and law, called restorative justice. There are various practices of restorative justice, but the prototypical form involves a getting together of victim, offender and perhaps community representatives, where the incident and its aftermath are worked through in interaction between the parties. Ideally, the parties come to an agreement about the harm done, the values violated and the compensation, restitution and/or punishment required.We contend that retributive and restorative justice practices imply fundamentally different notions of justice. From a social psychological perspective, it would seem important to understand what determines whether people subscribe to a retributive or restorative justice notion. In terms of practical value, a more refined understanding of people's conception of justice should assist in fine-tuning justice practices in order to maximize a sense of fairness among the involved parties. This may help secure a higher level of legitimacy of our regulatory institutions and authorities-both in the legal arena and in organizational contexts, and regardless of whether the transgressions are of an interpersonal nature or occur in the context of large-scale intergroup conflicts. Our present empirical contribution focuses on transgressions in the interpersonal domain, where offenders and victims are considered as individuals or individual members of a group.European Journal of Social Psychology Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 909-930 (2010) Received 28 April 2008 Accepted 27 April 2009We examine two psychological conceptions of justice, retributive and restorative justice, and examine common identity as a key variable affecting the...

Punishment as restoration of group and offender values following a transgression: value consensus through symbolic labelling and offender reform

“…For example, the perceived prototypicality (Vidmar, 2002) or moral disposition of the offender (e.g. Hollander, 1958), as well as the extent to which the victim shares a social identity with the offender (Okimoto et al, in press;Wenzel et al, 2008) or defines the self through his or her membership in the relevant group (Wenzel & Thielmann, 2006), may have important implications for the strength of the victim's concern for value consensus. Likewise, the preferred route towards consensus may be determined by various situational cues or personality factors, such as high authoritarianism (Feather, 1998(Feather, , 2002Tyler & Webber, 1983) or social dominance (Sidanius, Pratto, van Laar, & Levin, 2004) which would theoretically lead to less focus on values and more concern over the interpersonal status and power lost in the transgression.…”

“…Restorative practices involve the affected parties dealing with the injustice through interaction and mutual understanding, focusing on restoring a sense of justice through renewed value consensus (Wenzel et al, in press). Recent empirical work has shown that heightened value concerns are related to greater endorsement of both traditional punishments and restorative processes (Wenzel & Thielmann, 2006;Wenzel et al, 2008), suggesting that both restorative and retributive processes may help consensualise values.…”

“…To the extent that victims of injustice are concerned with the preservation of group values, either for instrumental (Miller & Vidmar, 1981) or for identity purposes (Okimoto, Wenzel, & Feather, in press;Wenzel et al, 2008), restoring a victim's faith in the values of the group is important. These values derive their validity from a process of social validation, from a perceived consensus among people who are expected to hold the same values (Haslam, Turner, & McGarty, 1996).…”

Forecasting Errors in the Averseness of Apologizing

“…lawsuits between patients and the hospital). Staying within the context of legal disputes, apologies are an integral part of restorative justice (Wenzel, Okimoto, Feather, Platow, 2010;Strang et al, 2006). Indeed, restorative justice conferences in which a victim and perpetrator meet has been shown to benefit greatly from an apology (Strang, et al, 2006).…”

Restoring the Victim: Emotional Reactions, Justice Beliefs, and Support for Reparation and Punishment

“…Transgression victims prefer the use of restorative procedures to more punitive approaches when they share an identity with the offender and/or desire to establish consensus about the violated value (e.g., Wenzel et al 2012;Wenzel et al 2008Wenzel et al , 2010. And, people have lessened negative emotional experiences and calmer physiological reactions with restorative, as compared to retributive, responses to imagined transgressions against them (Witvliet et al 2008).…”