I recently stumbled across a comment about preventative justice vs. retributive justice, and it hit home in an unexpected way. The gist? Preventative justice is when you’re punished for something before you’ve actually done anything wrong. It’s like saying, “You might do something bad, so we’re going to limit your freedom just in case.” Meanwhile, retributive justice kicks in only after someone knowingly causes harm. This got me thinking about something that happened in my college algebra class.
Here’s the situation: we took an exam, and after grading, the instructor handed it back for review. But here’s the catch—we couldn’t keep it. We could look at it in class, but then it had to go right back to her. Why? “Security purposes,” she said. The only reason I can come up with is that it’s to prevent us from sharing answers with students who haven’t taken the test yet. So, essentially, we’re being denied the ability to study from our own graded exams because there’s a chance someone might share answers.
To me, this is a perfect example of preventative justice. We’re all being treated like we might cheat or help someone else cheat, even though most of us wouldn’t. But because it’s possible, we’re all blocked from accessing a helpful study tool. It’s like being punished for something that hasn’t actually happened and, for many of us, probably never would. And this approach could hurt our final grades because we’re missing out on studying our mistakes.
This concept of preventative justice isn’t just something you see in a classroom—it’s a big part of how our government operates, and it’s not always as fair as it seems. There are plenty of laws built on the idea that it’s safer to restrict people based on what they might do. Take curfew laws, for instance. Many cities impose curfews on minors to keep them off the streets after dark. The idea is to prevent trouble by keeping kids home, assuming that if they’re out, they’re more likely to get into risky situations. But this restricts the freedom of every minor, not just the ones who might actually cause issues.
Or look at stop-and-frisk policies in some cities. Police are given the right to stop, question, and search individuals based on “reasonable suspicion,” which often means stopping people who haven’t done anything wrong but look like they could. It’s treating people as potential criminals simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time or looking a certain way, and it can lead to searches and questioning for people who’ve done nothing wrong.
Another example? Gun ownership laws that prevent certain people from buying firearms because they’re assumed to be a higher risk, based on past non-violent offenses or mental health history, rather than any violent act. It’s meant to prevent harm, but it limits people’s rights based on what they might do, not what they’ve actually done. Drug possession laws work similarly: they penalize people for possessing substances even if they haven’t caused harm to anyone else, all based on the assumption that drug use leads to bigger societal problems.
In contrast, retributive or “reactive” justice is about punishing people only after actual harm is done. For example, theft laws apply once someone actually steals something; the person is punished only after the act of stealing, not just for the possibility that they might steal. Same with assault—people are prosecuted after committing an assault, not based on a suspicion that they might. Reactive justice doesn’t pre-emptively restrict people but instead holds them accountable once they’ve knowingly caused harm.
So here’s the question: what if we shifted back toward retributive justice in more areas? Instead of assuming the worst about people, we’d only punish actual wrongdoing. Imagine if drug use, for instance, was treated as a personal issue unless it led to harm, or if gun restrictions applied only when someone had used a firearm to harm others. I wonder if our justice system—and our society—would look a little different if we trusted people to make their own choices and stepped in only when harm was done.
What do you think? Is preventative justice fair, or are we missing out because of fear? And if we returned to a system based on retributive justice, how might things play out differently?
Until next time,
Traci
Hungry for More?
If you’ve been enjoying our Farm Table Talk articles, why not bring a little farm-to-table magic into your own kitchen? Check out our digital cookbook—packed with simple, seasonal recipes straight from our farm to yours. Whether you’re looking for hearty meals, quick snacks, or creative ways to use fresh, local ingredients, we’ve got you covered. Plus, every purchase supports our mission to nurture the land, care for our animals, and keep sharing the real stories behind farm life.
