A Different Way of Doing Justice

After the fall of apartheid in South Africa, Archbishop Desmond Tutu led his country in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). The TRC rejected the two extremes normally implemented after such violence. There would be no blanket amnesty, nor would every perpetrator face military tribunals as war criminals, such as took place after World War II. They opted for a third way: “granting amnesty to individuals in exchange for a full disclosure relating to the crime for which amnesty was being sought.”

This third way was based on the concept of restorative justice that was part of traditional African culture. As Tutu wrote, “The central concern is the healing of breaches, the redressing of imbalances, the restoration of broken relationships, a seeking to rehabilitate both the victim and the perpetrator, who should be given the opportunity to be reintegrated into the community he has injured by his offense.”

When people in the West think of justice, they usually think in terms of retribution. We focus on punishment of wrongdoing proportionate to the crime—an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Retributive justice uses an adversarial approach to justice and curbs the excesses of revenge. By contrast, restorative justice focuses on both the reparation of harm done and the healing of relationships. It is concerned about the needs of both the victims and the offenders. It uses a collaborative approach to justice and seeks reconciliation.