Social SciencesFreePrintable

Justice Approaches: Compare & Contrast

A free social sciences worksheet ready for your classroom. Open in Kuraplan to grab the print-ready PDF, customize it for your students, or generate a fresh version in seconds.

Download now

Name:Date:

Justice Approaches: Compare & Contrast

Read the briefing and case file. Then compare retributive and restorative justice, apply both approaches to a New Zealand scenario, and defend a recommendation. More than one response may be defensible if it is supported by evidence.

Briefing: two approaches to justice

Retributive justice responds to wrongdoing by establishing responsibility and imposing a proportionate consequence. It commonly uses formal rules and procedures; possible aims include accountability, deterrence and public protection. Restorative justice focuses on the harm caused and ways to address it. Where participation is voluntary and safe, a facilitated process can give affected people a voice and agree on actions such as an apology, reparation or support. Restorative processes do not automatically replace legal consequences. The approaches are not always opposites: a response may combine a formal sanction with steps to repair harm. Fairness depends on the circumstances, safety, proportionality and whose voices are heard.

Case file: damage at the community workshop

After an evening event, 17-year-old Maia and 18-year-old Wiremu entered a locked community workshop and deliberately damaged a workbench and several tools. The repair estimate is NZ$2,400. The workshop has cancelled two sessions while repairs are arranged. Both young people admit what they did. Maia says she acted on a dare; Wiremu says he was angry after being excluded from a programme. The coordinator wants the workshop reopened and the cost addressed. A volunteer who discovered the damage feels unsafe returning at night. The young people say they are willing to meet, but no meeting has yet been arranged. No other information about their histories or the legal outcome is available.

1.In your own words, distinguish the main purpose of a retributive response from the main purpose of a restorative response. Use one detail from the briefing for each.

2.Complete each row with a comparison relevant to the case file. Include purpose, process, and what accountability might look like. Finish by identifying one feature the approaches can share.

Retributive: purpose, process, or accountability
Restorative: purpose, process, or accountability
A possible shared feature

Student response
Student response
Student response

3.Name at least four stakeholders in the case file. For each, state one concern or interest that a fair process should consider.

4.Which response would you recommend: primarily retributive, primarily restorative, or a combination? Give a clear recommendation and support it with two case details and one condition or risk that decision-makers should consider.

5.If a restorative process is considered, outline three practical steps from preparation through follow-up. Include how the volunteer’s safety and choice would be respected.

6.A decision-maker says, “Restorative justice is always fairer because everyone gets to talk.” Explain why this claim is too broad. Give two reasons grounded in the briefing or case file.

7.Assess this proposal: the young people receive a proportionate formal consequence, contribute to an agreed repair plan, and take part in a facilitated meeting only if affected participants choose to. Identify one strength, one limitation, and one safeguard you would add.

8.Write a short conclusion answering: Which justice approach, or combination, is most appropriate in this case? Use at least two specific details and acknowledge one uncertainty that could change your recommendation.