this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2026
6 points (87.5% liked)

Anarchism

2960 readers
21 users here now

Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.


Other anarchist comms


Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Say, about eight conspire to harass someone for racist reasons or someone bombs a plane for whatever reason and dozens are injured, not to mention family members of the dead? IIRC restorative justice involves the victims talking it out with the perpetrator, but here that would be a bit of a power imbalance. And one-on-one-ing with each one at a time from so many people would be, I think, tiring to the point of blocking catharsis.

Is it one-on-one for a few of the people who then convince the rest of their "people" (swap this word out with either "perpetrators" or "victims"), if you get what I mean? (in other words, is restorative justice with a few of the group enough for social propogation of the justice within the group, ergo justice with the whole group achieved?) Are we appointing some moderator power to somehow sort through the mess of such a session without making the larger side groupthink "they're unreasonable and this is of no help" into leaving? Should the perpetrators be expected to one-by-one with each one at a time to achieve catharsis with that one, and vice versa?

(Why would they do it? Not sure. Remnants of racism before anarchism finishes dismantling such animosity? Unrealistic brain chemical deficiencies like extreme psychopathy or a psychotic episode that somehow lasts long enough to when victims start planning restorative justice? Or you can think of better motives.

I am aware that usually the true perpetrators lie in the factors that fostered the motivation but my question is what to do with the people under restorative justice. I am aware the restorative justice is not literally "one-on-one"; I'm using this term more broadly to refer to the associated conversation dynamics as compared to "large group vs the outnumbered". I am aware that restorative justice is about common understanding and not justice through revenge, and the former is what I mean by "justice" here. I am aware that restorative justice is only one popular answer to justice under anarchism but I really like it and want to philosophize over how it'd work out, and couldn't think of a better place than here, other than the dead-looking !anarchism101@lemmy.ca.

I am aware that I may be overcomplicating this...)

Edit: Corrected devastating word confusion. "transformative justice" now Ctrl+F, Ctrl-R'd with "restorative justice".

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

IIRC transformative justice involves the victims talking it out with the perpetrator, but here that would be a bit of a power imbalance. And one-on-one-ing with each one at a time from so many people would be, I think, tiring to the point of blocking catharsis.

Sorry but thats wrong, check out some sources regarding this. In short, transformative justice seeks to transform the conditions and people that were responsible for the transgression. One-on-oneing is not a necessary part of this (but coild still be done). Also in concrete situations support groups for the victims are a typical concept, thag allow them to keep agency and empowet them.

Larger scale transformative justice processes could draw inspiration from community accountability and as an concrete example from the reconciliation process that is ongoing after the Rwanda genocide.

[โ€“] Aatube@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago

Whoops, I've gravely used the wrong word. I meant "restorative justice"...

I'll check out these links!