Source: (2009) Australian Journal of Psychology. 61(1):50-57.

Retributive and restorative justice present two different responses to wrongdoing: one that focuses on addressing the moral wrong through punitive sanctions (retribution) and one that focuses on addressing the harm that has been caused through reparative sanctions (restoration). Psychological investigations of what factors influence which justice outcome that people desire (retributive, restorative, or both) have focused on two constructs: crime severity and shared identity. The crime severity approach contends that people can have multiple justice goals, and which justice goals people want to fulfil is dependent on the salient features of the situation (such as offence seriousness). The shared identity approach argues that people’s desire for restoration or retribution is dependent on the shared identity and perceptions of value consensus between offender and victim in the judgement context. The findings related to both of these factors are reviewed, and possibilities for future research integrating these two approaches are discussed. (author's abstract)