Justice in Practice: Distributive, Retributive, and Restorative Approaches

Four Domains of Justice and the Questions They Answer

In practice, “justice” names several distinct tasks that institutions perform. Confusion arises when we treat one task (like punishing wrongdoing) as if it automatically solves another (like repairing harm or distributing opportunities). A useful map distinguishes four domains:

• Distributive justice: how resources, services, and opportunities are allocated (income support, schooling, healthcare access, housing).
• Retributive justice: how wrongdoing is condemned and punished (criminal sentencing, sanctions).
• Restorative justice: how harms are repaired and relationships and community trust are rebuilt (mediation, conferencing, restitution, apology, reintegration).
• Procedural justice: how decisions are made fairly (due process, impartiality, transparency, voice, consistent rules).

Each domain answers the same core questions differently:

Because these domains can conflict, practical justice requires explicit choices about priorities: deterrence (prevent future harm), desert (give people what they deserve), rehabilitation (change behavior/capacity), and social repair (restore trust and safety).

Module 1 — Principles and Criteria

A. Distributive Justice: Principles and Decision Criteria

Distributive justice evaluates how goods and opportunities are allocated. It is not only about “who gets what,” but also about access conditions (eligibility rules, administrative burdens, geographic availability) and opportunity structures (education quality, hiring pipelines, disability accommodations).

• Primary aim: reduce unfair deprivation and exclusion; secure adequate access to key goods.
• Typical criteria (used alone or in combination):
  • Need: prioritize those with urgent deficits (e.g., emergency housing).
  • Equality: equal shares or equal access (e.g., universal primary care).
  • Contribution/effort: allocate based on work or input (e.g., wage systems, some benefits tied to contributions).
  • Merit/achievement: allocate based on performance (e.g., scholarships).
  • Priority to the worse-off: tilt resources toward those in the lowest positions (e.g., targeted tutoring for underperforming schools).

How it weighs the four aims: deterrence is indirect (reducing incentives for harmful behavior by reducing desperation); desert is controversial (should poverty be treated as deserved?); rehabilitation appears as capacity-building (training, treatment); social repair appears as inclusion and reduced stigma.

Continue in our app.

• Listen to the audio with the screen off.
• Earn a certificate upon completion.
• Over 5000 courses for you to explore!

Or continue reading below...

Download the app

B. Retributive Justice: Principles and Decision Criteria

Retributive justice treats wrongdoing as a culpable violation that merits condemnation and proportionate punishment. It focuses on the offender’s responsibility and the gravity of the offense.

• Primary aim: express censure and impose proportionate punishment on responsible agents.
• Key criteria:
  • Culpability: intent, knowledge, recklessness, negligence.
  • Wrongfulness: seriousness of the violated norm (e.g., violence vs. property offense).
  • Proportionality: punishment should fit the offense and culpability.
  • Constraints: no punishment without law; no collective punishment; limits on cruelty; consistency across cases.

How it weighs the four aims: desert is central; deterrence is often a secondary justification; rehabilitation may be included but cannot override proportionality; social repair is not the primary target and may be left unaddressed unless paired with other approaches.

C. Restorative Justice: Principles and Decision Criteria

Restorative justice treats wrongdoing as a harm to people and relationships, not only a rule violation. It asks what repair is needed and how those involved can move forward safely.

• Primary aim: repair harm, restore safety, and reintegrate participants where possible.
• Key criteria:
  • Victim-centered repair: address material loss, emotional impact, and safety needs.
  • Offender accountability: taking responsibility through concrete actions (restitution, service, treatment).
  • Voluntariness and informed consent: participation should not be coerced; parties understand options.
  • Future-facing commitments: plans to prevent recurrence (e.g., counseling, supervision, workplace changes).
  • Community involvement: where appropriate, include affected community members and supports.

How it weighs the four aims: social repair and rehabilitation are central; deterrence is pursued through changed behavior and strengthened norms; desert is present as accountability but less focused on suffering as a response.

D. Procedural Justice: Principles and Decision Criteria

Procedural justice evaluates the fairness of decision-making processes. Even substantively good outcomes can be unjust if produced by biased, opaque, or arbitrary procedures.

• Primary aim: ensure decisions are made through fair, reliable, and respectful processes.
• Key criteria:
  • Neutrality: decision-makers are impartial; conflicts of interest are managed.
  • Voice: affected parties can present evidence and be heard.
  • Transparency: reasons are given; rules are knowable; data is auditable.
  • Consistency: like cases treated alike; discretion is guided.
  • Correctability: appeals and review mechanisms exist.
  • Dignity: respectful treatment; no humiliating or degrading practices.

How it weighs the four aims: procedural justice is a constraint and enabler for all other aims. It does not decide what is deserved or needed by itself; it governs how those judgments are made.

Practical Tool: A “Justice Diagnostic” Checklist

When evaluating a policy or case, use this step-by-step diagnostic to avoid mixing domains:

1. Classify the primary problem: Is it deprivation (distributive), wrongdoing (retributive), harm needing repair (restorative), or unfair process (procedural)? It can be more than one.
2. Identify the harmed parties: individuals, groups, community, institutions.
3. Specify responsibility: individual culpability, institutional contribution, or both.
4. List what is owed: punishment, compensation, services, apology, policy change, procedural remedy.
5. Choose priority aims: deterrence, desert, rehabilitation, social repair—rank them for this context.
6. Pick matching institutions: court, welfare agency, mediation program, oversight body, etc.
7. Check procedural safeguards: neutrality, voice, transparency, appeal.
8. Define success metrics: recidivism, victim satisfaction, restitution completion, poverty reduction, disparity reduction, trust indicators.

Module 2 — Institutional Designs

A. Courts and Criminal Justice Systems (Retributive + Procedural)

Courts are designed to determine guilt and impose sanctions under rules that protect against error and abuse. Their strengths are formal fact-finding and enforceable judgments; their weaknesses include limited capacity for individualized repair and the risk that punishment crowds out rehabilitation or restitution.

• Core design elements:
  • Clear offense definitions and evidentiary standards.
  • Rights protections: counsel, confrontation, presumption of innocence.
  • Sentencing frameworks: guidelines to reduce arbitrariness; proportionality constraints.
  • Oversight: appellate review, independent inspectors, public reporting.
• Where deterrence/desert/rehabilitation/repair appear:
  • Deterrence: certainty and swiftness of sanctions can matter more than severity; policies can target high-harm behaviors.
  • Desert: proportional sentencing and culpability assessments.
  • Rehabilitation: treatment courts, education in custody, supervised release conditions.
  • Repair: restitution orders, victim impact statements—often limited without restorative programs.

B. Welfare Agencies and Social Policy Institutions (Distributive + Procedural)

Welfare agencies implement distributive decisions: eligibility, benefit levels, service delivery, and enforcement of conditions. Justice problems often arise not only from benefit size but from administrative burdens (complex forms, documentation demands, long waits) that effectively exclude eligible people.

• Core design elements:
  • Eligibility rules that balance targeting and accessibility.
  • Delivery mechanisms: automatic enrollment, one-stop services, mobile access.
  • Anti-discrimination compliance: audits, accessible accommodations, language services.
  • Procedural protections: clear notices, reasons for denial, rapid appeals.
• Where deterrence/desert/rehabilitation/repair appear:
  • Deterrence: fraud controls; but excessive policing can deter legitimate claims.
  • Desert: appears in conditionality (work requirements) and contribution-based benefits.
  • Rehabilitation: training, childcare support, addiction treatment, disability services.
  • Social repair: reducing stigma, building trust, repairing exclusion through outreach.

C. Mediation, Conferencing, and Community Programs (Restorative + Procedural)

Restorative institutions are designed to produce agreements that repair harm and reduce future risk. They work best when participation is voluntary, safety is prioritized, and agreements are monitored.

• Core design elements:
  • Referral pathways: from schools, workplaces, police, prosecutors, or courts.
  • Screening: assess power imbalances, coercion risk, and safety needs.
  • Facilitation standards: trained facilitators, structured dialogue, trauma-informed practice.
  • Agreement types: restitution, community service, no-contact plans, counseling, policy changes.
  • Monitoring and enforcement: follow-up meetings; escalation options if agreements fail.
• Where deterrence/desert/rehabilitation/repair appear:
  • Deterrence: strengthened norms and personal accountability; reduced retaliation cycles.
  • Desert: expressed as acknowledgment and meaningful amends rather than suffering.
  • Rehabilitation: individualized plans (treatment, mentoring).
  • Social repair: central—restoring trust and reintegrating participants.

Institution-Matching Guide (Quick Reference)

Module 3 — Case Studies

Case Study 1: Theft (e.g., stolen laptop)

Scenario: A student’s laptop is stolen from a library. The offender is identified. The laptop is sold; the victim loses coursework and personal files.

1) Distributive lens

What counts as harm? Loss of an essential tool for education; potential long-term setback. If the offender stole due to desperation, deprivation is part of the background conditions.

What is owed? Replacement support for the victim (emergency grant, loaner device), and possibly services addressing the offender’s needs (employment support, housing stabilization) to reduce recurrence.

Institutional response: university emergency funds; social services; insurance mechanisms with accessible claims.

2) Retributive lens

What counts as harm? A culpable property offense.

What is owed? Proportionate punishment based on culpability and prior record; formal condemnation.

Institutional response: police investigation, prosecution, sentencing. Trade-off: severe punishment may satisfy desert but can reduce rehabilitation and increase future risk if it destabilizes employment and housing.

3) Restorative lens

What counts as harm? Material loss plus stress, lost work, and reduced sense of safety.

What is owed? Repair plan: restitution (payment plan), replacement assistance, apology, and commitments to change (job training, counseling). Victim sets conditions for safety (no-contact, return of remaining property).

Step-by-step restorative process:

1. Intake: facilitator meets victim and offender separately; checks voluntariness and safety.
2. Preparation: clarify facts, impacts, and desired outcomes; identify support persons.
3. Conference: victim describes impact; offender acknowledges responsibility; community/supports discuss prevention.
4. Agreement: specific actions, deadlines, monitoring plan, and consequences for non-compliance.
5. Follow-up: check restitution progress and behavioral commitments.

4) Procedural lens

What counts as harm? Risk of wrongful accusation, unequal treatment, or opaque decisions (e.g., campus discipline without due process).

What is owed? Fair hearing, evidence standards, reasons for decisions, and appeal rights for both parties.

Institutional response: clear disciplinary codes, impartial adjudicators, and transparent restitution procedures.

How the approaches weigh key aims (theft)

• Deterrence: retributive emphasizes credible sanctions; restorative emphasizes accountability plus reintegration; distributive reduces desperation-driven incentives.
• Desert: strongest in retributive; present as accountability in restorative.
• Rehabilitation: strongest in restorative and supportive distributive services.
• Social repair: strongest in restorative (victim closure, community trust).

Case Study 2: Discrimination (e.g., hiring bias)

Scenario: A qualified applicant is repeatedly rejected. Evidence suggests a pattern: applicants from a protected group are screened out at higher rates. The harm includes lost income, humiliation, and reduced trust in institutions.

1) Distributive lens

What counts as harm? Unequal access to opportunities and income; cumulative disadvantage.

What is owed? Opportunity correction: targeted recruitment, accessible pathways, training programs, and possibly compensation for lost opportunities.

Institutional response: equal access policies, pipeline programs, and monitoring of outcomes (selection rates, pay equity).

2) Retributive lens

What counts as harm? Wrongful discriminatory acts by responsible decision-makers.

What is owed? Sanctions proportional to culpability (discipline, fines, liability). A key difficulty is attributing responsibility when bias is diffuse (implicit bias, informal networks).

Institutional response: enforcement agencies, courts, internal disciplinary bodies. Trade-off: punishment can deter but may not change organizational culture without structural reforms.

3) Restorative lens

What counts as harm? Personal and relational injury plus community distrust in the employer.

What is owed? Repair and transformation: acknowledgment, apology, compensation, and concrete institutional commitments (bias training with accountability, revised criteria, diverse panels, mentorship). Restorative work here often focuses on organizational repair, not only interpersonal reconciliation.

Step-by-step organizational restorative process:

1. Fact-finding with safeguards: gather data on hiring outcomes; protect complainants from retaliation.
2. Stakeholder circle: include affected applicants/employees, HR, managers, and an independent facilitator.
3. Impact statements: document harms (economic, psychological, reputational).
4. Commitment plan: revise hiring rubrics, implement structured interviews, set audit schedules, create reporting channels.
5. Monitoring: publish metrics; independent review; consequences for non-compliance.

4) Procedural lens

What counts as harm? Biased or opaque selection processes: unstructured interviews, discretionary screening, lack of reasons, no appeal.

What is owed? Fair procedures: standardized criteria, documentation, transparency, and complaint mechanisms with neutral review.

Institutional response: procedural reforms are often the fastest lever for reducing discrimination because they constrain discretion and create auditable trails.

How the approaches weigh key aims (discrimination)

• Deterrence: sanctions and liability can deter; transparency and audits deter quietly by increasing detection.
• Desert: difficult when responsibility is collective; retributive tools may target managers or the organization.
• Rehabilitation: training alone is weak unless paired with changed incentives and procedures.
• Social repair: requires acknowledgment and trust-building; restorative and procedural reforms work together.

Case Study 3: Poverty (e.g., inability to pay rent and fines)

Scenario: A person falls behind on rent after a medical emergency. They also accumulate fines for minor infractions. They face eviction and escalating penalties, which threaten employment and family stability.

1) Distributive lens

What counts as harm? Deprivation of basic needs (housing security), compounded by barriers (medical debt, unstable work, lack of childcare).

What is owed? Stabilization and access: emergency rental assistance, healthcare support, debt relief mechanisms, childcare, and job protection measures.

Institutional response: housing agencies, benefits systems, public health services. Key risk: complex eligibility and delays can turn temporary hardship into chronic poverty.

2) Retributive lens

What counts as harm? If the person violates laws (unpaid fines, minor offenses), retributive systems may treat this as culpable noncompliance.

What is owed? Proportionate sanctions, but proportionality becomes tricky when penalties are effectively harsher for the poor (a fine that is minor for one person is devastating for another).

Institutional response: courts and enforcement agencies. Justice tension: punishment aimed at deterrence can worsen poverty and increase future offending risk.

3) Restorative lens

What counts as harm? Harm spreads across landlords, neighbors, family members, and the person in crisis; the “offense” may be nonpayment rather than intentional wrongdoing.

What is owed? Practical repair agreements: structured repayment plans, mediation between tenant and landlord, service referrals, and commitments that prevent recurrence (budget counseling, benefits enrollment support). Restorative approaches here often resemble problem-solving rather than moral condemnation.

Step-by-step housing mediation process:

1. Rapid intake: confirm arrears amount, timeline, and immediate eviction risk.
2. Stabilize: connect to emergency funds; pause proceedings when possible.
3. Mediation session: tenant explains circumstances; landlord states constraints; explore options.
4. Agreement: repayment schedule, partial forgiveness, repair commitments, communication plan.
5. Follow-up: check compliance; adjust plan if income changes.

4) Procedural lens

What counts as harm? Systems that process cases quickly without meaningful voice (mass hearings), confusing notices, lack of counsel, and barriers to appeal.

What is owed? Clear notice, time to respond, access to representation, and decision rules that consider ability to pay.

Institutional response: eviction courts with right-to-counsel programs, ability-to-pay hearings for fines, transparent fee structures.

How the approaches weigh key aims (poverty)

• Deterrence: punitive fines may deter some behavior but can be counterproductive when noncompliance is driven by inability rather than choice.
• Desert: hard to apply when “fault” is mixed (bad luck, illness, labor market instability).
• Rehabilitation: capacity-building (healthcare, training, stabilization) is often more relevant than punishment.
• Social repair: preventing eviction and reducing stigma can restore community stability and trust.

Putting the Approaches Together: Designing a Coherent Response

Real systems often combine domains. The key is to be explicit about which domain is doing which job, and to prevent one domain from undermining another.

Common Combination Patterns (and Their Risks)

• Retributive + Restorative: a court case proceeds, while a restorative program handles victim repair and reintegration. Risk: restorative participation becomes coerced if tied too tightly to sentencing discounts.
• Distributive + Procedural: benefits are expanded, but access remains unequal due to complex procedures. Risk: “rights on paper” without real uptake.
• Procedural as a constraint on all: due process and transparency prevent distributive targeting from becoming arbitrary, and prevent restorative programs from pressuring victims. Risk: overly rigid procedures can slow urgent aid.

Practical Step-by-Step: Building a Justice “Response Plan” for an Institution

1. Define the institution’s role: Is it allocating goods (distributive), judging wrongdoing (retributive), repairing harm (restorative), or ensuring fair decisions (procedural)?
2. Set priority aims: choose a ranked list (e.g., safety first, then repair, then rehabilitation, then deterrence).
3. Draft decision rules: what evidence is required, what thresholds trigger action, what discretion is allowed.
4. Embed procedural safeguards: notice, voice, neutrality, reasons, appeal.
5. Create referral links: courts ↔ treatment services; welfare agencies ↔ legal aid; mediation ↔ enforcement backstops.
6. Measure outcomes: not only outputs (cases processed) but harms reduced (repeat victimization, recidivism, poverty duration, disparity metrics, trust surveys).
7. Audit trade-offs: check whether deterrence tools are worsening deprivation, or whether desert-focused sanctions are blocking repair.