Valjean's perspective would be closer to mine. Cutlturally though, I think those two perspectives get confused and convoluted- because our emotional responses to injusstice confuse and convolute them. Have I ever felt that someone who wronged me should be punished rather than loved into changing.  Yes. The person who once stole my purse comes to mind. When it initially happened I was frustrated and mad about it.  Is that the right way to look at it? No, probably not, is my gut feeling. Probably, it's wrong conditioning that made me feel that way, and it probably contributes to a more unhealthy, vengeful society to perpetuate that anger and frustration.  It may make me feel better momentarily, 'that they get theirs for whatever they did", but it doesn't change that they did it, nor does it do  anything to create a more balanced, more loving society- and so I don't think it's just. It's better to think, "I didn't really need anything in that purse that can't be replaced. He probably needed it more than me, or he wouldn't have stolen it." I feel much better to think that matybe someone could love and care for "the thief" enough, and in a manner, that he doesn't feel the need to do that. I don't know what happened, however. My purse was never recovered. I replaced it. The person who stole it wasn't caught. But I didn't allow myself to remain angry about it. It was a learning experience.

Retributive 'justice' doesn't change the fact that whatever the person did, they did--maybe they already regret it, I don't  know--and they may just feel more bitter and rejected for being punished, rather than loved into a better way.  Am I strong and loving enough to forgive them and not make my own hurts tor grudges the issue? It's probably a better question to ask ourselves. We can learn and change how we look at it, I believe. Compassionate justice, with mercy, such as Valjean's displays, has a greater possibility of that person not only learning from their mistakes, but learning to love others going forward.

I'm with Valjean. 

I'm also with restorative justice (as per Maori and most indigenous Canadian peoples). Restorative justice recognises the injury done in the place it is done and seeks healing in whatever way that has to happen; it is not the soft option many say. I see little point in putting people accused of a crime (as technically defined by some statute) into the remote setting of a courtroom to talk about the clinical physical details of an "alleged" offence and then to put those found "guilty" into the removed, bizarre and cruel environment of a prison. That may satisfy a bit of vengeance-lust but it doesn't necesarily address the crisis/problem where is actually exists with the people who are in various ways involved. 

The problem with restorative justice is that it calls for commitment and concern at the community level and anger comes easier, and wiythout any need to justify the anger. It's assumed by the sentencing process.

And who has time for all of that these days? Besides, many people — particularly city dwelers — apparently know little of their neighbours.

I threw in with Valjean a long time ago. Yes, there needs to be some kind of justice system, but punitive, retributive justice based on a strict notion of social order isn't justice IMHO. The restorative justice Mike talks about is closer to the ideal for me. There must be room for mercy and reform in any justice system. I do acknowledge that there may come a point where locking someone up is necessary for the protection of others (e.g. a serial stalker whose victim(s) are under threat if the stalker is loose; a repeat offender who resists restorative measures) but even that needs to be recognized as a defensive measure, not as "justice".

Mendalla

I fell in love with the story of Les Miserables the first time that I saw it - ten years ago. I've always identified with the character of Jean Valjean - a man who always tries to do the right thing. I also was impressed by the Bishop of Digne character - it's a minor role in the musical, but he changes Jean Valjean's life by showing him incredible mercy. I'm also a big fan of restorative justice, and wish it was used more in our courts.

I also throw in with Jean Valjean.  (I just saw the movie.)

But if everyone is so much in favour of distributive justice and restorative justice, why is there such a demand for more law and order, longer sentences, more prisons, and harsher treatment of prisoners? 

… the deep, politically fanned fears that afflict so many, Seeler.

Fear is a sure eraser of compassion, trust and dignity.

amen.

Nothing about Les Mis in this article.  But a "must read" for questions around alternate views of justice:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/magazine/can-forgiveness-play-a-role-i...

Be ready for tears

I also am with Valjean.

I have no stomach for retributive justice. Restorative justice that rehabilitates and re-integrates the offender, in a spirit of love and compassion, is my kind of justice. This, I think, is also the spirit of the New Testament. Retributive or punitive justice is the stuff of the OT.

Eponine; she has the most difficult choice to make and with all the odds of circumstance and upbrining against her--she chooses aright. Love that chooses the beloved--radically and sacrificially.

Interestingly, I am coming around to this view, too. While she her screen/stage time is limited compared to Javert and Valjean, Eponine's role is a powerful and important one. And On My Own is possibly the most beautiful piece in the show.

Mendalla