Cut and paste from http://www.nij.gov/topics/courts/restorative-justice/Pages/welcome.aspx

For some time now there has been growing dissatisfaction with the justice system. Citizens feel disconnected, victims are dissatisfied, and those working in the system are frustrated. Policymakers are increasingly concerned about the burgeoning cost of justice in the face of this discontent and the high rates of recidivism that exist.
Over the past decades, there has been growing interest in new approaches to justice, which involve the community and focus on the victim.
The current system, in which crime is considered an act against the State, works on a premise that largely ignores the victim and the community that is hurt most by crime. Instead, it focuses on punishing offenders without forcing them to face the impact of their crimes.
Restorative justice principles offer more inclusive processes and reorient the goals of justice. Restorative justice has been finding a receptive audience, as it creates common ground which accommodates the goals of many constituencies and provides a collective focus. The guiding principles of restorative justice are: [1]
1. Crime is an offense against human relationships.
2. Victims and the community are central to justice processes.
3. The first priority of justice processes is to assist victims.
4. The second priority is to restore the community, to the degree possible.
5. The offender has personal responsibility to victims and to the community for crimes committed.
6. Stakeholders share responsibilities for restorative justice through partnerships for action.
7. The offender will develop improved competency and understanding as a result of the restorative justice experience.

I'm not in the mood to explain why you are mistaken.

In the article the intended definition cannot be any other than application of law. It is not talking about any other possible definition.

You want to blur various definitions together, but that is not how English works. You choose one definition, replace every instance of that word with that definition. There may be accidentals, where a word is used with different intended meanings, but there is generally a one for one ratio of words to meanings.

Some where in you words & the way they are put together is symbolic of what much of our problems in life are about.

Not that I find what you say is wrong. I think what I am saying is the way words are put together mean something a bit different between different people.

If we each were to express our self with different sets of words we may get to a point where we both would be in agreement.

When we just have thoughts in our heads we may see things quite clear. When we speak to others we may have to change the words we express our self's with. When we are looking people in the face as we talk we can change the words we are using to better understand each other.

Putting words on paper becomes a greater challenge because you lack the facial feed back that lets you see just which part of what you are saying is a problem.

So what you were saying might well have been a very correct way of saying it. But not seeing what was stated earlier I am lost as to what the statement means.

So what I think I was getting at is I think the misunderstanding of what people write is key to much of the disagreements we have with each other.

If this in any way made sense to you I would be pleased to hear from you. If not sense at least some idea of what I am getting at.

I think I understand. We have "tangled threads" before, but I generally agree with a lot of what you write. You couldn't know that because I don't generally comment when I agree, probably like many others at opp. I have noticed you are very precise with your wording and you follow a linear logic like a hound dog on a fresh scent. I on the other hand check out side issues and meander around a subject for a while. You are right we both get to the same destination a lot of the time, but our processing is different and it may seem we are at odds along the way sometimes when we arent.. I suspect next time we seem to disagree I will think about this some more and be able to see both our sides. Of course we may disagree in substantial ways on some issues, but we can be gentle(wo)men about it and still be civil, even friendly!

Thanks for posting that, because what you said and my thinking it through has helped me understand you better. And myself as well.

I would like to ask how one can recognize an act as moral?

I would submit that one cannot. I submit that what is moral is agreed upon by a group of people, and that it cannot be decided by just one person. Once an action is approved by the group, that is what makes it moral. Without the group agreeing to it, it is neither moral nor immoral.

Perhaps what we call immoral is only an action that is not approved of by our group, but it is approved by another group as moral. So if our group has designated that action as immoral, but another group has designated that action as moral, how can we recognize the action itself as moral or immoral?

I would like to ask how one can recognize an act as moral?

I would submit that one cannot. I submit that what is moral is agreed upon by a group of people, and that it cannot be decided by just one person. Once an action is approved by the group, that is what makes it moral. Without the group agreeing to it, it is neither moral nor immoral.

Perhaps what we call immoral is only an action that is not approved of by our group, but it is approved by another group as moral. So if our group has designated that action as immoral, but another group has designated that action as moral, how can we recognize the action itself as moral or immoral?