In what sense doesn't it work though? Because from a re-offending rate it unequivocally does work.

In terms of preventing new crimes from being committed, I think the honest answer is "it depends". I think early intervention and preventing crime in the first place is always going to beat punishing people for crimes after the fact.

What? Citation is definitely needed for that claim about Scandinavia.

Restorative justice may not "work" for every single person in every single situation but neither does punitive sentencing. If you look at recidivism for whether it "works" then restorative justice performs way better in the majority of cases. Then we should consider the moral/ethical correctness of what the justice system is and what it should do.

I don't think this type of dichotomy of thinking is helpful. Given that the research seems to suggest that "heavy punitive sentencing" doesn't reduce crime, I think the take away is that human behavior is difficult to change.

But then it's not punishment for punishment's sake, but for deterrence's sake.

I read the comment as talking about retribution, to make the victim feel good, not about deterrence.

Are you saying you have data to show that 20 years for murder has a different deterrent effect than 120 years for murder?