Retributive Justice Approach
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
A Retributive Justice Approach is a justice approach with that emphasises punishment.
- Context:
- It can (typically) have Retributive Justifications (either forward-looking justifications, such as deterrence and backward-looking justifications).
- It can (often) be associated with Punitive Intuitions.
- It can posit that:
- those who commit certain kinds of wrongful acts, paradigmatically serious crimes, morally deserve to suffer a proportionate punishment;
- it is intrinsically morally good—good without reference to any other goods that might arise—if some legitimate punisher gives them the punishment they deserve; and
- it is morally impermissible intentionally to punish the innocent or to inflict disproportionately large punishments on wrongdoers.
- …
- Counter-Example(s):
- See: Code of Hammurabi, Revenge, Sadistic Personality Disorder, Deterrence (Legal), Rehabilitation (Penology), Cicero, De Legibus, Elements of The Philosophy of Right.
References
2021
- (Wikipedia, 2021) ⇒ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/retributive_justice Retrieved:2021-4-1.
- Retributive justice is a theory of punishment that when an offender breaks the law, justice requires that they suffer in return, and that the response to a crime is proportional to the offence. As opposed to revenge, retribution—and thus retributive justice—is not personal, is directed only at wrongdoing, has inherent limits, involves no pleasure at the suffering of others (i.e., schadenfreude, sadism), and employs procedural standards. Retributive justice contrasts with other purposes of punishment such as deterrence (prevention of future crimes) and rehabilitation of the offender. The concept is found in most world cultures and in many ancient texts. Classical texts advocating the retributive view include Cicero's De Legibus (1st century BC), Kant's Science of Right (1790), and Hegel's Philosophy of Right (1821). The presence of retributive justice in ancient Jewish culture is shown by its mention in the law of Moses, [1] which refers to the punishments of "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" in reference to the Code of Hammurabi. Documents assert similar values in other cultures. However, the judgment of whether a punishment is appropriately severe can vary greatly across cultures and individuals.
- ↑ 19:17-21
2021
- Gabor Melli. (2021). https://nextdoor.com/p/PYRscMQtgzCZ/c/568343679
- QUOTE: ... No, people shouldn't steal but they continue to do so. Why?
To me, cheating someone of their belongings, especially when that stranger is likely out of sight, is a deep and ancient and tribal instinct. Over the eons though, gratefully, we have co-created a civilizing culture that stops people from acting on that impulse.
In this thread though what I'm hearing is that separate hanker of retributively hurting the cheater. Such as by strengthening laws that quickly smack "felon" on them.
According to the article and some current research, "felonizing" those impulsive cheaters does not help to prevent them whatsoever ... :-/
- QUOTE: ... No, people shouldn't steal but they continue to do so. Why?
2020
- https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-retributive/
- QUOTE: ... The concept of retributive justice has been used in a variety of ways, but it is best understood as that form of justice committed to the following three principles:
- that those who commit certain kinds of wrongful acts, paradigmatically serious crimes, morally deserve to suffer a proportionate punishment;
- that it is intrinsically morally good—good without reference to any other goods that might arise—if some legitimate punisher gives them the punishment they deserve; and
- that it is morally impermissible intentionally to punish the innocent or to inflict disproportionately large punishments on wrongdoers.
- … Retributive justice has a deep grip on the punitive intuitions of most people. Nevertheless, it has been subject to wide-ranging criticism. Arguably the most worrisome criticism is that theoretical accounts of why wrongdoers positively deserve hard treatment are inadequate. If they are inadequate, then retributive justice provides an incomplete theory of punishment, one that at most explains why wrongdoers deserve censure. Even the idea that wrongdoers forfeit the right not to be suffer proportional hard treatment might be better explained by appeal to other explanations of why hard treatment (1) is instrumentally valuable, and (2) is consistent with respect for the wrongdoer.
- QUOTE: ... The concept of retributive justice has been used in a variety of ways, but it is best understood as that form of justice committed to the following three principles:
2020
- https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/punishment/#ThePun
- QUOTE: ... If the latter prevail, the theory is deontological; on this approach, punishment is seen either as a good in itself or as a practice required by justice, thus making a direct claim on our allegiance. A deontological justification of punishment is likely to be a retributive justification. ...