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".
“contained” sounds no different from imprisonment. We’ve tried to reinvent prison for centuries, and every time it’s resulted in recreating the university of crime. When you confine people to a structure kept away from normal society, it becomes a prison. (I never said you said prison was bad socialization. It’s simply what results with your proposal.)
Material incentives are still valuable to psychopaths. In our current system, psychopaths oppress others because they learn that it’s the fastest way to gain material (as our system is designed), whereas in anarchism people just gift each other things.
They’re normal people who like normal criminals predominantly can and do produce things valued by society; they just have no empathy. Of course restorative justice is not the right tool for them, but psychopaths still are about to learn what’s socially acceptable, even if they just get annoyed and give in because people aren’t giving them what they want instead of actually feeling what damage they’d cause.
I didn’t downvote you. Please don’t convict me of crimes I didn’t commit.