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".
I put your text into a summarizer to more easily read it.
Judging and enforcement are incompatible with true anarchism—they impose hierarchy. Anarchism doesn't eliminate prejudice; prejudice is innate to herd behavior, whether in animals or humans. For example, wasps in Panama show this: they attack intrahive wasps but will switch hive allegiance if they feel they aren’t contributing. Similar behaviors exist across species.Community justice often personalizes blame, risking turning individual crimes into collective ones—undermining objective justice. Neither pure objectivity nor subjectivity alone suffices; justice requires both. Relying solely on local politics distorts fairness. Historical abuses among Indigenous communities illustrate these failures. Priya Parker's insights reveal that traditional courts often hinder meaningful resolution, though re-engineered systems can improve outcomes—usually reducing incarceration but sometimes increasing punishments for those who manipulate the system.
Biological diversity includes true psychopaths—individuals like Jeffrey Dahmer or Epstein—whose brain wiring makes them derive pleasure from violence and murder, impervious to socialization. Cross-cultural studies confirm that innate differences lead to extreme behaviors; socialization can't erase such wiring. An anecdote from "Snakes in Suits" underscores that socialization isn't a cure: a man who had murdered before easily did so again, highlighting the dangers of ignoring innate tendencies.
Civilization must control psychopathic behaviors; otherwise, it becomes complicit in their crimes. Pretending otherwise ignores reality. I merely offer perspectives—many will reject or ignore them. Laws protect religious and ideological beliefs as constitutional rights; so do prejudices. It's absurd that anarchism claims to be without leaders yet seeks to prohibit all other regimes—effectively positioning itself as the ultimate authority.
This is a systems issue: societies can optimize to maximize rights within ecological limits or sabotage themselves for short-term gains. Humanity's choices—such as risking extinction in the Great Filter—are theirs alone. My role is to present viewpoints; rejecting them is valid. If some perspectives lead to a deeper understanding, that’s the purpose.
I offered that up as a possible motive. I'm not disputing that. Also, I disagree with your implications that psychopaths must be imprisoned and that prison is good socialization.