Social justice 

is the overarching societal concern about what

is right and wrong, fair and unfair. Social justice applies these
concepts of correctness and fairness with the notion
of equality or equal opportunity in society.
Social justice is vast and encompasses equal economic,
political, and social rights and opportunities for all.
What is the essence of Social Justice?
- Ensures that every member of society, regardless of race,
ethnicity, gender, education, etc., is afforded the same
opportunities, privileges, and protections as everyone else
Examples:
- equal opportunity employment, free public education, welfare
programs, the universal right to vote in elections

• *equal pay as your coworker, justice implies a sense of

fairness, equality, and unbiased treatment. Therefore, if two
employees share similar backgrounds, college education, and
experience, they should be paid equally. It would be unjust to
pay one person less because of their gender, race, ethnicity,
religious preference, etc. Social justice ensures each
similarly qualified employee receives the same
compensation.
• Equality means each individual or group of people is given the
same resources or opportunities.
• Equity recognizes that each person has different
circumstances and allocates the exact resources and
opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome
Criminal justice is a subset of social justice that applies the
criminal justice process when principles of right and wrong, and
fair and unfair are violated according to criminal law.
• For example, in a society we have agreed that it is wrong to
steal and have developed laws upheld by the criminal justice
system to promote social justice. Therefore, if Paul steals his
neighbor's Christmas decorations to put them up at his house
(something we consider socially unjust and unlawful), Paul
should be held accountable by the criminal justice process.
When Paul's neighbor realizes that his Christmas decorations
have been stolen, he will, without a doubt, expect to see justice
for this crime committed against him.
ADR and Restorative Justice
Restorative Justice refers to a principle which requires a process
of resolving conflicts with the maximum involvement of the victim,
the offender and the community. It seeks to obtain reparation for
the victim; reconciliation of the offender, the offended and the
community; and reassurance to the offender that he/she can be
reintegrated into society. It also enhances public safety by
activating the offender, the victim and the community in
prevention strategies. (RA 9344)
Restorative justice views crime as more than breaking the law – it
also causes harm to people, relationships, and the community.
The foundational principles of restorative justice have been
summarized as follows:
• Crime causes harm and justice should focus on repairing that harm.
• The people most affected by the crime should be able to participate in its
resolution.
• The responsibility of the government is to maintain order and of the
community to build peace.
If restorative justice were a building, it would have four corner
posts:
• Inclusion of all parties
• Encountering the other side
• Making amends for the harm
• Reintegration of the parties into their communities
• Retributive justice - response to criminal behaviour that focuses on the
punishment of lawbreakers and the compensation of victims. In general,
the severity of the punishment is proportionate to the seriousness of the
crime.
• Retribution appears alongside restorative principles in law codes from the
ancient Near East, including the Code of Ur-Nammu (c. 2050 BCE), the
Laws of Eshnunna (c. 2000 BCE), and the better-known Babylonian Code
of Hammurabi (c. 1750 BCE). In those legal systems, collectively referred
to as cuneiform law, crimes were considered violations of other people’s
rights. Victims were to be compensated for the intentional and
unintentional harms they suffered, and offenders were to be punished
because they had done wrong.
Four basic claims:
1. The principle of willful wrongdoing - The principle of
blameworthiness or willful wrongdoing holds that the
justification for punishment is the blameworthiness of an
offender who willingly commits an offence.
2. The principle of proportionality - The principle of
proportionality is an essential consequence of the theory of
retribution as it is based on the principle of just deserts. It
demands that punishment must fit the crime; that is, the
quantum of suffering inflicted on the offender should be
proportional to the gravity of the crime.
In determining the severity of punishment, a court must look to
the moral culpability of the offender and the seriousness of the
offence. Serious offences should be punished more severely than
minor offences to reflect the moral gravity of the offences. 3 The
gravity of an offence can be gleaned from the harm it causes and
the moral culpability of the offender.

Moral culpability – the willingness or intent, guilty mind, criminal

intent
seriousness of the offence – the harm/damage caused, the result
as an effect of the act
3. The principle of necessity - The third principle of retribution is
the intrinsic goodness of punishment. Punishment is seen as
justified in itself. Kant5 and Packer6 therefore consider that while
other goods may be derived from punishment, they must not be
pursued for their own sake.

4.The principle of inherent justice - the principle of necessity

stipulates that punishment is obligatory and that a state has a
right to punish offenders.
Procedural justice (or procedural fairness) is defined as the
fairness of processes used by those in positions of authority to
reach specific outcomes or decisions.
Are the procedures leading to the outcome were fair? 
Key Components:
1. people perceive the decision making as neutral,
2. rule based, and
3. consistent;
4. they feel their rights are acknowledged, and
5. that they are treated with dignity and respect;
6. and parties to the conflict have an opportunity to participate in
solving the conflict.
• Distributive justice has to do with whether a participant feels
the outcome was fair. Procedural justice, on the other hand,
involves the participants’ sense of whether the procedures
leading to the outcome were fair. Several studies indicate
that procedural justice diminishes criminal offending.
Distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of an allocation or,
more broadly, to how people judge what they receive.

Criminal laws are distributive when they mete out punishment for the
primary purpose of ensuring victim welfare.