Justice Theories:

Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely
by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or
pleasure as summed among all people. It is thus a form of consequentialism,
meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome.

Utility, the good to be maximized, has been defined by various thinkers as

happiness or pleasure (versus suffering or pain), although preference utilitarians
like Peter Singer define it as the satisfaction of preferences. It may be described
as a life stance, with happiness or pleasure being of ultimate importance.

Utilitarianism is described by the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest
number of people". Therefore, it is also known as "the greatest happiness
principle". Utilitarianism can thus be characterised as a quantitative and
reductionist approach to ethics. It can be contrasted with deontological ethics
(which do not regard the consequences of an act as the sole determinant of its
moral worth) and virtue ethics (which focuses on character), as well as with
other varieties of consequentialism.

Adherents of these opposing views have extensively criticised the utilitarian

view, but utilitarians have been similarly critical of other schools of thought.
And like any ethical theory, the application of utilitarianism is heavily
dependent on the moral agent's full range of wisdom, experience, social skills,
and life skills.

In general, the term utilitarian refers to a somewhat narrow economic or

pragmatic viewpoint. Philosophical utilitarianism, however, is much broader.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restorative Justice is a theory of justice that focuses on crime and wrongdoing
as acted against the individual or community rather than the state. In restorative
justice processes, the person who has harmed takes responsibility for their
actions and the person who has been harmed may take a central role in the
process, in many instances receiving an apology and reparation directly or
indirectly from the person who has caused them harm. Restorative processes
which foster dialog between the offender and the victim show the highest rates
of victim satisfaction, true accountability by the offender, and reduced
recidivism[citation needed].
Definition of Restorative Justice:

"Restorative justice is a broad term which encompasses a growing social

movement to institutionalize peaceful approaches to harm, problem-solving and
violations of legal and human rights. These range from international
peacemaking tribunals such as the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation
Commission to innovations within the criminal and juvenile justice systems,
schools, social services and communities. Rather than privileging the law,
professionals and the state, restorative resolutions engage those who are harmed,
wrongdoers and their affected communities in search of solutions that promote
repair, reconciliation and the rebuilding of relationships. Restorative justice
seeks to build partnerships to reestablish mutual responsibility for constructive
responses to wrongdoing within our communities. Restorative approaches seek a
balanced approach to the needs of the victim, wrongdoer and community
through processes that preserve the safety and dignity of all"[1].

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Retributive justice is a theory of justice that considers that punishment, if

proportionate, is a morally acceptable response to crime, with an eye to the
satisfaction and psychological benefits it can bestow to the aggrieved party, its
intimates and society.

In ethics and law, "Let the punishment fit the crime" is the principle that the
severity of penalty for a misdeed or wrongdoing should be reasonable and
proportional to the severity of the infraction.[1] The concept is common to most
cultures throughout the world. Its presence in the ancient Jewish culture is
shown by its inclusion in the law of Moses, specifically in Deuteronomy 19:17-
21, and exodus 21:23-21:27, which includes the punishments of "life for life,
eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Many other documents
reflect this value in the world's cultures. However, the judgment of whether a
punishment is appropriately severe can vary greatly between cultures and
individuals.

Proportionality requires that the level of punishment be scaled relative to the

severity of the offending behaviour. However, this does not mean that the
punishment has to be equivalent to the crime. A retributive system must punish
severe crime more harshly than minor crime, but retributivists differ about how
harsh or soft the system should be overall.

Traditionally, philosophers of punishment have contrasted retributivism with

utilitarianism. For utilitarians, punishment is forward-looking, justified by a
purported ability to achieve future social benefits, such as crime reduction. For
retributionists, punishment is backward-looking, and strictly for punishing
crimes according to their severity.[2]

Depending on the retributivist, the crime's level of severity might be determined

by the amount of harm, unfair advantage or moral imbalance the crime caused.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distributive justice concerns what some consider to be socially just with
respect to the allocation of goods in a society. Thus, a community in which
incidental inequalities in outcome do not arise would be considered a society
guided by the principles of distributive justice. Allocation of goods takes into
thought the total amount of goods to be handed out, the process on how they in
the civilization are going to dispense, and the pattern of division. Civilizations
have a narrow amount of resources and capital; the problem arises on how the
goods should be divided. The common answer to this question is that every
individual receives a fair share. Often contrasted with just process, which is
concerned with just processes such as in the administration of law, distributive
justice concentrates on just outcomes and consequences. A prominent
contemporary theorist of distributive justice is the philosopher John Rawls,
although this subject matter has now received wide treatment across philosophy
and the social sciences (see James Konow, 2003).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In classical politics, a tyrant is one who has taken power by their own means as
opposed to hereditary or constitutional power. This mode of rule is referred to as
tyranny.

The word derives from Latin tyrannus, meaning "illegitimate ruler", and this in
turn from a non-Indo-European loan word in Greek, τύραννος, týrannos,
meaning "sovereign, master", although the latter was not pejorative and
applicable to both good and bad leaders alike.

In modern usage, the word "tyrant" carries connotations of a harsh and cruel
ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy
over the best interests of the general population, which the tyrant governs or
controls. Many individual rulers or government officials are accused of tyranny,
with the label almost always a matter of controversy.