In light of yet another BreadTube debacle, I think it’s time we have a more nuanced take on the concept of restorative justice.

Four different terms will appear in order to describe types of justice in this thread: punitive, retributive, restorative, and rehabilitative.

Punitive justice is justice dependent on the enactment of punishment upon the perpetrator of an injustice.

Retributive justice is a punitive theory that calls for retribution: giving or repayment as a means of accounting for wrongdoing

Restorative justice, to quote Howard Zehr: “is a process to involve, to the extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific offense and to carefully and to collectively identify and address harms, needs, and obligations, in order that one put things as right as possible.”

This thread will split the concept of retributive justice into “punishment” and “retribution”. It will also split restorative justice into “restoration” (which focuses on the victim’s wellbeing) and “rehabilitation” (which focuses on the improvement of the offender).

Too often I hear Leftists push for restorative justice exclusively. But it is to my belief that a combination of restorative and retributive approaches is necessary to fully enact justice that brings the most benefit to a community.

To avoid misinterpretation I will blatantly say I am a prison abolitionist and I do not think punitive justice should be most or even half of this proposed combination approach. Rather I see the role of retribution playing a vital role in reconciliation.

In identity issues, offenses committed often have invalidating, emotional and/or psychological tolls on victims. And unfortunately quick admission of guilt and apologies are rare in Twitter spaces. Days, weeks, even months can be taken before the affected receive an apology.

During this time the affected groups are subjected to harm, and when the long awaited apology is finally received it is rarely equivalent to the harm caused. Additionally, several subsequent issues may have arisen from that one instance.

Rarely does a delayed apology ever take away the problem it is issued for. In these instances to focus on rehabilitation (offender) more than restoration (victim) is irresponsible. The innocent affected party should not be minimized in favor of the one committing the wrongdoing.

The privileged often expect unflinching patience/forgiveness/empathy as they stumble through micro-aggressions hurting marginalized ppl in their wake. Yet those on the receiving end of the harm from their mistakes are policed for their reactions. An unbalanced relationship.

Prioritizing justice in the eyes of the victim now depends on that element of retribution mentioned earlier. One cannot simply harm a community and then reap forgiveness. Retribution takes effort, arguably the same or more than it took to commit the offense.

Think about what you’ve done and how it affected others. Ask yourself how you can repay those you’ve hurt? Sometimes that requires more words beyond an apology. Sometimes it requires action or educating yourself or a monetary offer, etc.

Additionally in the restoration component, the larger community plays the role of ensuring the wellbeing of the victim and that conditions are made safe. Provide the victim room to voice their grievances without forcing reconciliation prematurely.

Keep in mind apologies are not always accepted immediately (or at all!) Some offenses require the victim to take time to process or distance themselves from the perpetrator. Once again, the focus is on the aggrieved party first and foremost.

Although there is much more I can say on the topic, finding ways to compress this nuanced topic into 280 characters is tiring. So I am going to conclude here.

In this framework the objectives in restorative justice should not only be rehabilitation of the offender, but retribution and restoration of the victim in order to reach reconciliation. Consider this going forward in further BreadTube drama.

There will be another, trust me.