Write at least one substantive response to this post and references retributive vs. Restorative justice "Two major philosophies that come to the forefront when considering how societies should respond to crime are retributive and restorative justice. Both retributive and restorative justice aim to address wrongdoing, but they differ greatly in how they define justice and what they prioritize. Retributive justice is based on the principle that punishment should be proportional to the offense committed. Wenzel, Okimoto, Feather, and Platow (2008) say, retributive justice emphasizes accountability through state-imposed sanctions and is grounded in a moral belief that offenders "deserve" punishment for violating the law. Some say that retributive justice reinforces the rule of law and provides a sense of closure to those affected by acknowledging the harm that has been done and helps deter future crimes through its punitive consequences. It is also said that retributive justice can be overly punitive. The goal of restorative justice is to repair harm by involving all stakeholders; offender, victim, and community in a structured dialogue (Wenzel et al., 2008). With restorative justice, offenders are encouraged to take responsibility and make amends. Just like retributive justice, there are some concerns with restorative justice about its consistency, fairness and effectiveness for more serious and violent crimes. Both philosophies have different values with punishment vs. healing