Introduction There are two main approaches to the administration of the criminal justice system that are often compared and contrasted. Retributive justice represents a more traditional approach, which focuses on punishment. On the other hand, restorative justice places emphasis on repairing harm and repairing relationships. While each approach certainly has advantages and disadvantages, the media also plays an important role in influencing the public's perception of them. While I agree with many elements of restorative justice, I believe the most effective way to provide justice may not be to choose one over the other, but to combine elements of both. Retributive justice Retributive justice can be seen as a conventional approach in most criminal justice systems and the process is carried out mainly through criminal justice professionals such as police, lawyers and judges (Elliot, 2012, p.341). Basically, criminal law prohibits any action deemed harmful to the community, providing certain punishments for violations (Griffith, 2011, p.15). These laws are established by the government and any act contrary to its definition constitutes a crime or violation against the state. Furthermore, the criminal justice system in Canada is known as an adversarial system, where justice can be achieved once two parties have supported the truth (Griffith, 2011, p.12). Once proven guilty, the accused will receive a specific punishment depending on the crimes committed. These punishments are designed to deter potential offenders and “to 'equalise' the harm suffered by the victim” (Elliot, 2012, p.341). Although the compensation system has well-defined standards, its effectiveness is sometimes questionable. Maintaining the criminal justice system is a very expensive undertaking and often lacks resources