In policy development, why is it important to balance procedural justice with substantive justice?

• A. Restitution options include financial compensation, property restoration, or remediation.
• B. Restitution options are not a factor in victim participation.
• C. Restitution options must be decided by the defense.
• D. Restitution options are purely symbolic.

Answer: (B)

Balancing procedural justice with substantive justice means ensuring fair process and fair outcomes in policy development. Victims’ participation hinges on how the process is conducted—whether they’re given notice, a voice, and a sense of due process—while restitution options relate to the actual remedies used to address harm. When we separate these ideas, it becomes clear that restitution choices are about the outcome (substantive justice), whereas participation is shaped by the fairness of the process itself (procedural justice). Therefore, restitution options not being a factor in victim participation best captures the idea that how the process unfolds matters for participation, not which specific remedies are available. The other statements imply that participation depends on remedies (A), that decisions must be made by the defense (C), or that remedies are merely symbolic (D), which do not align with the emphasis on fair process paired with meaningful outcomes.