SPRAWIEDLIWOŚĆ NAPRAWCZA A RETRYBUTYWIZM W ODPOWIEDZIALNOŚCI KARNEJ
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE VERSUS RETRIBUTIVISM IN CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

Summary/Abstract: The paper presents main tenets of restorative justice theory in the area of criminal law. The theory is focused not on authoritative but consensual solution of conflict induced by criminal act. In opposition to retributivism, which concentrates on the offender, restorative justice apart from the offender takes notice of the victim and local community. All three subjects (the victim, the offender, local community) are parts of dispute. Their common engagement gives chance to find comprehensive and final solution. The maximal aim of restorative justice is restoring the peace and rapport into interpersonal relations which have been broken up in the aftermath of the offence. The anticipated aim is accomplished through various procedures, mostly by means of mediation. On the one side restorative justice demonstrates responsiveness to diverse participants’ expectations. On the other, it avoids relativisation of crime’s evil. According to the given theory criminal punishment is ultima ratio reaction to the offence. In author’s view restorative justice is located between justice in strict sense and mercy. This theory stands aloof from extreme attitudes, that are both laxism and repressive rigorism. Admittedly restorative justice is not able to replace retributivism entirely, but can fruitfully supplement it. Restorative justice reveals its usefulness in cases, where mechanism of typical criminal process controlled by the state and public authorities is clearly malfunctioning. Optimal and desirable model of criminal policy should rationally unite paradigms of two – at the first – sight alternative and standing in opposition – title justice theories.

• Details
• Contents