One of the more controversial aspects in the governing ways of the western world is how the justice system is handled. The death penalty still exist in more than half of the United States of America, and prisons such as Guantanamo Bay hold their captives under harsh living conditions that violate human rights, and humans include prisoners, regardless of their crime. However, there are some countries such as Norway, that utilises a different approach: restorative justice. Instead of making prisoners live in inhumane conditions, or using the death penalty, which is called ‘retributive justice’ as the motive is based on hatred and revenge, the Norwegians have developed a method that allows captives to live away from standard society but within a community where they can live with, and as human beings, being rehabilitated in a way that bring no harm to anyone and allow them to return to society if they are deemed rehabilitated, all in a non-punitive approach. In this blog, I will be discussing as to why the western world should focus on ‘restorative justice’ rather than retributive punishment, referring to it’s positive effects to the inmates and society, how it is a more ‘humane’ approach and how it is more effective in rehabilitating inmates than putting them in a harsh prison or outright killing them, and how it reduces the risk of a repeat offense. I will also discuss my counter-claim of the limited sentence, and a rebuttal against that.
EDIT: Changed the premises at the end according to recent changes to my argument plan. Also, I will be re-adding this section to my complete blog post, so it will be shortened according to the word limit and will have to add and re-arrange some of the hyperlinks.
“Justive rains from above.” – Fareeha Amari