Editing Justice (section)

===Retributive and Restorative justice===
{{Main|Retributive justice|Restorative justice}}

Retributive justice argues that consequentialism is wrong, as it argues that all guilty individuals deserve appropriate punishment, based on the conviction that punishment should be proportional to the crime and for all the guilty.<ref>{{cite web |title=Punishment |url=https://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/punishment.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210413204529/https://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/punishment.htm |archive-date=13 April 2021 |access-date=12 August 2020 |website=[[California State University]]}}</ref> However, it is sometimes said that retributivism is merely [[revenge]] in disguise.<ref>{{cite book |last=Honderich |first=Ted |title=Punishment: The supposed justifications |date=1969 |publisher=[[Hutchinson & Co.]] |location=London |chapter=1}}</ref> However, there are differences between retribution and revenge: the former is impartial and has a scale of appropriateness, whereas the latter is personal and potentially unlimited in scale.<ref>{{cite web |date=9 October 2015 |title=Retribution vs Revenge - What's the difference? |url=https://wikidiff.com/retribution/revenge}}</ref>

Restorative justice attempts to repair the harm that was done to the victims.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Wilson |first=Jon |title=Victim-Centered Restorative Justice: An Essential Distinction |url=https://justalternatives.org/VCRJ.pdf}}</ref> It encourages active participation from victims and encourages offenders to take responsibility for their actions. Restorative justice fosters dialogue between victim and offender and shows the highest rates of victim satisfaction and offender accountability.<ref>Michael Braswell, and John Fuller, ''Corrections, Peacemaking and Restorative Justice: Transforming Individuals and Institutions'' ([[Routledge]], 2014).</ref> [[Meta-analysis|Meta-analyses]] of the effectivity of restorative justice show no improvement in [[recidivism]].<ref name="Schultheis">[[doi:10.1177/1748895823121522|Fulham, L., Blais, J., Rugge, T., & Schultheis, E. A. (2023). The effectiveness of restorative justice programs: A meta-analysis of recidivism and other relevant outcomes. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 0(0). 8]]</ref><ref name="Cochrane">{{cite journal |last1=Livingstone |first1=Nuala |last2=MacDonald |first2=Geraldine |last3=Carr |first3=Nicola |year=2013 |title=Restorative justice conferencing for reducing recidivism in young offenders (aged 7 to 21) |journal=Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews |volume=2020 |issue=2 |pages=CD008898 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD008898.pub2 |pmc=7388302 |pmid=23450592}}</ref>

====Welfare-maximization====
According to the utilitarian, justice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across all relevant individuals.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Project Gutenberg eBook of on Liberty, by John Stuart Mill. |url=https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm |access-date=3 May 2019 |via=Project Gutenberg}}</ref> This may require sacrifice of some for the good of others, so long as everyone's good is taken impartially into account. Utilitarianism, in general, says that the standard of justification for actions, institutions, or the whole world, is ''impartial welfare consequentialism'', and only indirectly, if at all, to do with [[Human rights|rights]], [[property]], [[need]], or any other non-utilitarian criterion. These other criteria might be indirectly important, to the extent that human welfare involves them. But even then, such demands as human rights would only be elements in the calculation of overall welfare, not uncrossable barriers to action.{{cn|date=February 2025}}