2 II. In favor of a distributive model for the Judiciary 10. Consequently, it is time to turn to the question posed: what must be done to obtain simple, prompt justice? 11. Answer: change the usual conception (model or principles) of retributive justice – in force throughout most of the Continent – for distributive justice. 12. There is no innovation or novelty in this. These two principles were initially described by Aristotle, in Ancient Greece, more than two thousand years ago. More recently, John Rawls prepared a contemporary synthesis, 1 which has influenced various judicial reforms. 13. There are just two types of justice followed by contemporary courts: retributive (also called commutative, restorative, rectifying, corrective, sinalagmatic or arithmetic) and distributive (also known as proportionate or geometric). 14. The retributive model is the one that sentences the individual who has broken the law, the debtor, to pay the victim, or creditor, merely what he took from him. In other words, to make retribution, to restitute, taking into consideration just the facts, acts, things or services in question, in a merely arithmetic proportion and in fairly reasonable terms, totally disregarding the individuals involved. There are numerous cases in the courts; violation of a reasonable time and impunity are constant. 15. On the contrary, the distributive model is the one that sentences the individual who has broken the law, or the debtor, to pay the victim, or creditor, more (or much more) than the property that was taken from him or the injury suffered. In other words, in addition to the necessary restitution, it sentences the offender to pay something more, taking into consideration not just the facts, acts, things or services in litigation, but the characteristics or merit of the individuals involved in the dispute, to the extent that they are unequal, such as for example full knowledge of the criminal or injurious act, intent to commit it, acknowledgement of guilt, intention of postponing payment to the creditor, financial capacity, property, rights, schooling, function, position. In other words, personal factors can increase or reduce the sentence. In this model, geometric proportion can be introduced in values that are consequently higher. 16. In the distributive model, it is prohibited to litigate in bad faith and the person who does so is punished. There is fear that the creditor will obtain justice. Consequently, it is more effective in preventing litigations and greatly reducing the number of cases in court, especially those artificial disputes concerning simple collections, repeated by thousands, with little real litigation substance, and that only exist because the debtor wants to postpone the payment of his debt and take advantage of property that belongs to another person. 17. If we take a look at the global panorama, it can be said that, in general, in countries where justice is prompt and respected by society, and feared by offenders and criminals, where the ability to punish prevails, the number of cases is limited, the country is usually developed, and the model is distributive. 18. Distributive justice is the appropriate model for countries that are trying to develop, and overcome the delay in processing court cases, corruption and impunity. 19. If the countries of the Americas changed their model and their method of sentencing, there would be a considerable reduction in the excessive number of judicial actions, the 1 In 1967, in his article “Distributive Justice”, developed further in his classic 1971 study “A Theory of Justice.”