Why Do the Public Prefer Retributive Justice Over Restorative Justice? A New Direction for Subjective Group Dynamics

The prison system in England and Wales is facing urgent calls for reform. Research shows that, compared to retributive justice, restorative justice is a more economically viable option that reduces rates of reoffending whilst increasing victim satisfaction. Yet, in the face of this evidence, the public tends to maintain a preference for harsher, retributive sentencing. Previous investigations into the public's appraisals of the restorative versus retributive justice debate have focused on two key concepts: crime severity and shared identity. The present research aimed to build upon these studies, drawing on Subjective Group Dynamics and expressivist theories of punishment to further explore the effects of group identification and crime severity on individual justice preferences (Study 1), focusing on how these relationships are influenced by ingroup accountability (Study 2).

Overall, the results reaffirm the link between crime severity and justice preferences, with participants favouring restorative justice for minor offences and retributive justice for more serious crimes. However, contrary to expectations, ingroup accountability did not moderate this relationship. That said, ingroup accountability did influence punishment preferences, in terms of both the form of justice pursued and the factors prioritised when arriving at this decision. Ultimately, corroborating the claims of expressivist theorists, showing that harsher, retributive sentencing serves as form of moral communication, whilst also supporting the integration of Subjective Group Dynamics with the shared identity approach. The implications for future research on public attitudes toward restorative versus retributive justice and their potential impact on the prison crisis in England and Wales are also discussed.