Restorative Justice, Poverty and HRV

Justice, a concept that is commonly associated subsequent to crime. Crime, a violation of a legislated law or even an unwritten custom agreed upon, which merits the offender a consequence of retribution. The more civilizations and societies have progressed, the more complex judicial systems have become.
In the Philippines, what is more common is the notion of retributive justice. It is a theory that presupposes that punishments are justifiable so long as they are proportional to the crime committed by the violator. Supposedly, it aims to make the criminal understand that what he has done is wrong because it causes damage to other people and the community in general. Simultaneously, punishment is something that would deter and hinder other people from violating the law. In the news for example, when the relatives of a victim would grievously face the camera and state: sana mabigyan ng hustisya ang anak ko!, they are most likely referring to retribution. Usually for damage of property, the sentence is monetary compensation or reimbursement and for physical injury, more often than not the verdict would indicate incarceration.
Theoretically there is nothing wrong with the whole injunction. But of course the effectivity of a certain system varies with respect to the culture it is imposed on. For instance in Japan, those who are sentenced to prison are still allowed a form of gainful livelihood. They are given paper work, or researches from which they can earn a minimum wage. The money that they earn is placed directly in a bank for safekeeping, which they may have access to only upon being discharged. At least they haven’t wasted months, if not years of their lives in idleness. This methodology was pilot-tested after ex-convicts complained that they often didn’t have anything to go back to when they get out of prison because no immediate employment awaits them. True enough, a very low rate of recidivism reflected the effectivity of the strategy. But sadly, in the Philippines, due to lack of funds even for vital services, our areas for confinement are one of the worst in the world. Cells are jam-packed and cramped, which results to an unhealthful and unsanitary environment. Criminals by then are made to feel the gravity of their crime even by the mere state of their place of detention. And still the crime rate of the country steadily increases year after year. What does this say about our justice system or our country in general? There is definitely something wrong…
The other type of justice, which is less popular and seldomly used is restorative justice. Supporters of this approach believe that crime is something committed against an individual or a community and not against the state. So the offender is made to undergo a process of restitution that he/she may repay the victim or community that he had offended. Activities such as public apologies, rendition of public service and counseling are just some of the things that are included. More often than not, this proposition is presented to cases of juvenile delinquents in the hope of a positive transformation. Schematically, a restorative means of resolving conflict is both less damaging and “promotes more healing” for both the victim and the violator. It shows very promising results too, because according to recorded cases it also reveals a low rate of a relapse in criminal behavior. One may wonder, why this system is not implemented in the country; it’s cause it is said to be very costly. There is a need to employ counselors, mediators to promote dialogue between the violated and the offender, case reviewers, information disseminators and collectors, as well as educators to make the public aware that the notion of justice can in fact be reconstructed in a more humane schema. Dumping convicts and letting them pile up with only food and jail guards to spend on is more “cost efficient” anyway, since after all what is being dealt with here are criminals and rotten off-springs of society. Why would people want to spend their taxes on providing for the comfort of people who have endangered the lives and property of other people? And surely, when a member of my family was killed or raped, I would want the criminal to suffer the same fate and vanish from the face of the earth. Justice: what violent truth be-webs and envelops it…
How complicated justice seems to be and yet a lot of people are uttering it as if it were such a mundane word. Restorative justice versus retributive justice; which one could truly emancipate humanity from being shackled by ignorance or overpowered by its first nature? I say, the best way of deterring crime is not in elaborating on the consequence but on preventing it. Crime… such a brutal word and yet ironically, when mentioned seems to be just another word that has embedded a bitter truth in the everyday life of many. What is wrong with our society? What is right seems all wrong and what is wrong appears to be very common…
As of late, political killings are the most rampant criminal cases that have stirred controversy. Mostly radio commentators, media contributors and journalists are the unfortunate and piteous preys of this spate. Everyone seems to know that the government has something to do with it and yet no one can give material proof that it is actually happening. It is said that the common characteristic of those who were “silenced” was that they were vocal about their resistance and opposition to the current administration. They articulated and exposed the dreadful and yet factual things that the government is letting the people experience. And for this they are eternally barred from their right to freely express themselves. Obviously, there was bloodshed, there are deaths, numerous at that; evidently there is crime. Justice is supposed to follow and yet it isn’t. Why? Because there is no one to which justice should be decreed upon. This is what I wish to point out: for what use are talks about what form of restitution or retribution is to be implemented if in the first place the condescendence of crime can’t even be agreed upon.
My thesis statement is something that involves poverty, is it too far-fetched a thought to link to political killings and justice? The need to express oneself and the capability of man to conceive notions of justice are actually fulfillment of his “higher needs”. These needs are essentially grounded on a more basic need of man, which is to survive. Food, water, clothing, shelter and the opportunity to acquire these resources are what a modern man needs to survive. The lack thereof would automatically entail poverty. In reality what occurs here is a vicious cycle of the unfulfillment of man’s basic and higher needs. Filipinos are so poverty-stricken that they do not have the avenue to develop themselves in a gainful manner because they are living in an isang kahig-isang tuka manner. Those who are able to overcome this stage and are elevated to the status of taking care of their political/ civil rights are being killed by those who want to remain superior. Supposedly, media people hold the key to public awareness, they have the power to educate and awaken the people from ignorance. They can expose the inefficiencies and irregularities in the government so that people will act and take away the force that oppresses them and that thy may free themselves from poverty. But these significant people are being hunted down for “inciting to sedition” and are taken cared of “extra-judicially”. What is there to restore, when lives of people can never be brought back? There can never be justice. People remain in their state of poverty because of fear that when they try to satisfy their higher needs, their right to exercise their freedom to speak or even to think freely, they would suffer a gruesome fate. Poverty: Justice: Freedom; their strands are far more entangled than we perceive and yet no one seems to know how to reduce the chaos that there is at present.