The whole "restorative justice" thing often gives noble savage vibes when it's applied to ridiculously heinous crimes. I can see the utility of restorative justice when applied to minors, who exhibit escalating criminal behavior. It can genuinely help petty teenage criminals getting involved with gangs or shoplifting.

But when we're talking about someone who commits felony murder, restorative justice is not going to cut it. The reason we have retributive justice in the justice system is because society at large needs to feel as if the justice system is doling out appropriate punishments for certain crimes. If it doesn't, people begin to lose faith in the justice system. Think about how people would react if a man who violently raped and dismembered a 8-year-old girl got just some restorative justice sessions as a punishment. People would start taking the law into their own hands.

Restorative justice operates on the premise that criminal actions aren't actually your decision. They're the end-result of a life of poverty, racism, etc.

But at a certain point, the justice system needs to ascribe moral agency to an individual. Meaning that, even if you grew up poor and disenfranchised, at the end of the day, you still made a choice, and the justice system punishes that choice.

If we adopt a philosophy where there's no choice ever involved, there's no reason to have a justice system. Because why punish things people didn't choose to do? It's non sensical.