The findings supported the hypothesis that the just desert notion of justice was positively associated with support for traditional forms of punishment, particularly when participants did not identify with a relevant inclusive community. On the other hand, the value restoration notion of justice was positively associated with support for alternative punishment, particularly when community values were regarded as diverse and requiring consensus. The findings support the conceptual distinction of two different justice models following rule-breaking. Two different studies were employed. In the first study, 965 adult participants were drawn from the Australian electoral roll. Participants completed a survey that contained two scenarios depicting tax evasion offenses: (1) a company doctor who manipulated the company’s books to reduce their taxes by $200,000; and (2) a tradesperson who gave discounts for customers in return for being paid in cash, which illegally reduced taxes by $10,000. In both scenarios, the offenders had been previously arrested for a similar offense. Following the scenarios, participants answered a series of questions measuring the two different justice philosophies (just desert and value restoration) in relation to the tax evasion offenses as well as demographic information. The second study was designed to replicate the findings of the first study in relation to a different type of offense: social security fraud. Participants were 263 undergraduate students who answered questions measuring the 2 justice philosophies in relation to a scenario depicting a person who had been receiving government assistance payments but failed to inform authorities about the financial support from a de facto partner, which would have made the person ineligible to receive assistance. Data were analyzed using zero-order correlations and hierarchical regression models. Future research should examine the factors that encourage or inhibit support for restorative justice practices. Tables, figures, footnotes, references