Long after the February 2012 shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, defendant George Zimmerman, has been found not guilty by a jury of his peers. The case has remained a hot topic for media since it was first reported. The unarmed teenager was shot and killed in a street fight with Zimmerman, a 29-year-old member of his neighborhood watch. Details of the case are known, reported and have long been part of a national discussion. This is a very high profile case.

As the Zimmerman trial has been conducted, so too has the trial of Bradley Manning. Manning has become a household name among civil libertarians, but not to the majority of Americans.

Manning is a US Army soldier arrested in May 2010 for leaking classified material to WikiLeaks. Since his detention he has been charged with 22 offenses, including “aiding the enemy.” Perhaps the most well-known of the Manning leaks is the video showing war crimes — the repeated targeting of un-armed men, news informants and children — by US troops in Iraq. This leak raises disturbing questions about US foreign policy and is being treated as espionage rather than whistle blowing by the government (as is the Edward Snowden case).

What’s the difference between the Zimmerman case and the Manning case? Both trials are current, but there is no national discourse for Manning. One cannot make broad claims as to why, but maybe the answer lies in our conceptions of justice.

The system of justice utilized by the United States is “procedural justice.” In this system justice is a procedure, not an outcome. The system depends on due process rights and adherence to law.

What the American public tends to champion is “retributive justice” — justice based in the outcome of a trial. If a defendant is believed to be guilty in the public conscience then “justice” is only served if said defendant is found guilty.

“Restorative justice,” however, encourages deep reflection. It focuses on the needs of the victims, the offenders and the impacted community. ...