Last component of social justice is transformative justice.
It is a standard philosophical way of giving answers to disputes. It takes the foundations and methods of restorative justice beyond the criminal justice system. It is applicable to areas such as ecological law, business law, labor-management interaction, customer bankruptcy and debt, and family law. Transformative justice uses a technique strategy, aiming to see problems, as not only the beginning of the criminal activity but also the causes of criminal activity, and tries to correct a violation as a transformative relational and academic opportunity for sufferers, violators and all other members of the impacted group. Theoretically, a transformative justice design can apply even between individuals with no prior relationship.
It can be seen as a standard philosophical way of giving answers to disputes similar to peacemaking. Transformative justice is concerned with main causes and extensive results. It is similar to treatment rights more than other solutions to jail time.
In comparison to restorative justice, no quantification or evaluation of loss or damages or any task of the function of sufferer is created, and no attempt to evaluate the past (historical) and upcoming (normative or predicted) circumstances is created either. The sufferer is not normally part of the transformative process, but may be able to participate. Members believe that what comprises effective damages may decrease, which may include splitting or identifying criminal and sufferer.
In comparison to equity-restorative rights, there is no public meaning of value enforced on participants. Each is free to decide on some “new normal” state of being for themselves, and is not forced to believe the fact on it. A sufferer may continue to seek vengeance or desire penalties, e.g. as in retributive rights techniques. A criminal may have no regrets from doing such activity and may say so.
As in transformative learning, one works from preferred upcoming declares back again to the present steps required to reach them. The issue is not whether the criminal may make a decision to do something similar again, but whether the town is willing to support the sufferer and criminal in some form of communication. It is possible for town to select someone or something to support the criminal and not the sufferer as described by the law, but in doing so they may be required to support some revised definition of “equity” so that law returns into line with the public idea of value. For example, it is possible for town to support jail time as a means of solitude but not penalties.
This design may have origins in the work of Samuel Tuke and B. F. Skinner but it depends on individual volunteers’ looking after and assisting potential, not any culturally enforced manners produced from society. Transformative justice idea has been innovative by Ruth Morris and Giselle Dias of the Canada Quakers.