Justice as Retribution

Justice as Retribution

Every individual in the globe has a perception towards crime, justice, criminals, and many other aspects in relation to criminals. On hearing the term "criminal," every individual reacts differently. There are those who feel that a criminal deserves to die, others feel they should rot in prison and many other divergent views. However, does it ever occur that a criminal can be a criminal, through a legal process although they did not take part in the crime? This is a serious issue, which requires critical reasoning before going around judging or calling other people criminals. To the main point, retribution is the main topic or the subject matter for this paper. In the criminal context, the term retribution suggests revenge. This revenge, which the court delivers, is unseen by the common people. However, a critical scrutiny suggests that the legal process is also a tool to deliver revenge, on behalf of the victim (Barton 12-80). This is because it involves punishing the offender, as a means to achieve justice for the victim. This does not differ in any way with the concept of "an eye for an eye." This paper is explores various materials in an attempt to provide adequate information concerning justice as retribution.

Introduction

Over the past decade, there has been a paradigm shift witnessed in the legal system, which has seen the adoption of punitive punishment across the globe. The paradigm shift to "punitive populism" has resulted to the increase of imprisonment. Additionally, this has led to an increase in the number of offenders in prison. The prison population is worrying with current statistics suggesting a twofold rise. If there will be maintenance of the witnessed trends, it is likely that in the year 2014 the number of prisoners will have doubled. Such a situation will lead to adverse effects, which is of concern because there will be a burden of cost and maintenance, which the taxpayer will have to cater for (Allen 41-42).

It is impossible to determine why people call for harsh punishment for criminal offenders, but a speculation on this makes it apparent that the guiding motivation seems to be the realization of retribution. The definition of retribution also known as inter alia is the advocacy of penalty to restore justice and equilibrium in the society. Additionally, it also qualifies as a preference for retaliation and an expression of vindictiveness. Overall, there is a lack of adequate research on the issue of retribution, which has resulted to the insufficient and diverse definitions of the term retribution. Notably, there are two approaches to retribution.

On one hand, it has an association with restoring a sense of justice via obtaining or asking for compensation, which is proportional to the damages to the victim (retribution as just deserts). On another hand, it is the less constructive use of punishment to revenge the offender and get back to him (retribution as a form of revenge). The two dimensions do not show any empirical difference. Although some studies suggest that, there is a variation between the two dimensions, it is still hard to understand how justice can be in a form of punitive punishment (justice as retribution) (Barton 12-80).

On the other hand, social justice, which best applies in community justice, defined as the attempt to restore the society by providing a partnership between the local government, private sectors and the community, collectively involves the variables of crime prevention and justice, but offers new ways of thinking away from retribution. In most cases, community justice, draws or borrows greatly from the concepts of restorative justice. Many studies have provided empirical evidence, which suggests that restorative justice is the focal point in community justice, which aims at developing the community's safety and establish the desired results of justice, away from retribution (Clear and John 3-4).

In addition, community justice also borrows greatly from a wide range of ideas ranging from community crime prevention, community policing, restorative justice sanctioning approaches and many others. In order to clarify the meaning of retribution, and further provide the basis of whether the approach is a form of justice, this paper will evaluate the goals of punishment, which originate from the assignation of punishment. However, retribution as revenge arises from divergent ideological views evident for group-based dominance as outlined by social dominance orientation (SDO), and collective security as outlined by the right wing authoritarian (RWA). Notably, the harsh punishments given to offenders have a positive correlation and support the concept of retribution as revenge (Pratto et al. 741-763).

Background

The goals of any justice system are to deliver justice to the victim, which makes it apparent that the purpose of justice is to punish wrongdoers or offenders. In so doing, the justice system accomplishes its role of delivering justice to the victims. However, the people's perceptions concerning the purpose of punishment are in two categories. They include instrumental objectives and retributive objectives. The instrumental objectives provide a justification in the context of future benefits, which are the possibility of reduced crime. In this view, there is likelihood to achieve the objective (Carlsmith, Darley and Robinson 284-299), but research suggests that this leads to retaliation rather than preventing future wrongdoings.

On the other hand, retributive objectives are central to the idea that criminal offenders deserve to receive punishment because they have violated the society's rules, and the punishment must show proportionality to the committed crimes. Additionally, the intensity of a punishment should rely on the perceived seriousness of the offence, the drive and the accountability of a criminal offender. However, while retribution seems to have a correlation to the repayment of such acts, this approach also includes numerous and diverse non-instrumental elements of punishment such as concerns on justice, proportionality, morality, social cohesion and the retaliation of the offence.

Owing to the above, the elements offer a path to measurement of retribution. This has also led to numerous studies in this field. Therefore, there are numerous studies, which argue for retribution as just deserts and retribution as revenge. In the first case, the offender pays back for the harm inflicted on the victims, and in so doing, there is justice. The restoration of justice in the first case is via proportionality and a fair process (Barton 12-80). Notably, by clearing the debt, there is distribution of negative and positive experiences, but there is achievement of a social equilibrium, and a subsequent restoration follows. However, in this case, there is a need for a fair process, which should rely on the severity of the offence to fair compensation.

In the case of retribution as revenge, people want to punish not only as a means to get even (to achieve equilibrium), but also as a form of retaliation. In this case, further, it is apparent that it is the society, which evens the score with the involved offender, and not the offender compensation for the committed crimes. The context of revenge or vengeance, always involves the emotional satisfaction of witnessing the offender go through a form of punishment, which makes them suffer. There are important lessons from the second case, which include; the severity of the offence does not necessarily offer a boundary to the harshness of the given punishment, and there is achievement of equilibrium even if the suffering from the given punishment exceeds the seriousness of the crime.

Importance of the study

There is global consensus that the justice system is fair in the administration of justice, to both the offender and the victim. Additionally, someone has to pay for the crimes committed, the suffering inflicted to innocent people, as an attempt to reduce or eliminate criminal activities. In so doing, there is a feeling that there is achievement of justice, for both the victim and the offender. What some people ignore is that justice is a form of revenge a topic, which all tend to disagree. The topic is debatable, and one importance is that studying or conducting numerous researches on the topic, it will provide an insight to judicial sentencing. The studies from such a topic will also provide substantial information on the conceptual arguments of sociology, philosophy, politics and economics and their relationship with the administration of justice.

Research questions

The following research questions will provide a guide, which will aid the investigation for this research paper. The research questions are as follows;

1) Is retribution based on the concept of the victim getting back to the offender to make them suffer (retribution as revenge)?

2) Is justice achieved through retribution?

Literature Review

Retribution is central to the desire that criminal offenders undergo the same, or experience their "just deserts" as a form of getting what is rightfully theirs. This desire for "just deserts" is apparent in the concept of "eye for an eye," which is core in the lex talionis from which a deduction of "retaliation" derives. In the context of biblical view, the texts from the law books provide a series of rules consisting of punishment for different offences. Therefore, the law of retaliation outlines the principle that a criminal offender should suffer the same injury, which one inflicted to the victim. Additionally, the desire for "just deserts" appears as the requirement for moral equilibrium because offenders must pay a moral debt (Jacoby 115).

Prior studies further suggest that there is a correlation between vengeance and justice because both aim at making the world a fair place by achieving moral balance. Apparently, there is a significant correlation between revenge and punishment. Revenge is vulnerable to returning harm in equal state as the harm suffered. This is the objective of the lex talionis, which aims to ensure the balance of the moral world using similar harms and only in the form of an eye for an eye, not two eyes for an eye. Therefore, as one aspect of justice, vengeance is helpful in realizing balance of harms. The only thing that distinguishes retributive punishment in administration of justice from revenge is that it operates through structured institutions (Heather and Strang 55-76).

The institutions separate the moral balance from the emotional perspective of the victim. It is this balancing of harms as a means to achieve balance in the universe, which theorists reject. Owing to this, they also reject the punitive and retributions as justice provided in the law books of the Bible. On the other hand, some scholars have commented on the criminal justice owing to two main reasons. One, they suggest that the criminal justice has failed because it still utilizes the traditional court-based reactions, which they say are retributive. This further suggests that the criminal justice system aims at achieving retaliation and punishment, or simply achieve retributive justice (McKee and Feather 138-163).

In the context of restorative justice, a number of prior studies suggest that punishment, retribution and retributive justice are not in line with restoration and restorative justice. In the proper sense of the critiques, the terms "retribution" "retributive" both refer to the concept of punishment imposed on a wrongdoer as a means of just deserts. This means that the wrongdoers deserve the punishments because they instigated or called for the respective punishments. Therefore, the concept of just deserts of retribution refers to the rationale behind the imposition of punishment, arising from the offence, which the justice system opts for repayment to achieve balance by punishing the offender (Barton 41-53).

Currently, the available studies mostly from philosophers from modern time have patronized retributive punishment. Some of them suggest that retributive justice is the infliction of punishment in form of physical evil deserved due to a moral evil. Numerous Christian minds have taken in much a large portion of the Old Testament, and have managed to avoid righteousness when vengeance is being pursued on other people in reference to the lex talionis (eye for an eye paradigm) (Jacoby 115). Therefore, some scholars suggest that Christians should lead the campaign against retribution, instead campaign for community or social justice. They further suggest that social justice does not in any way support for revenge; this is because numerous studies have provided positive results on the topic. Offenders associated with community service have proven that they can change a great deal of community policing.

Some studies have offered empirical data, which have shown that the community instills values that reduce reconviction rates among offenders who have stated that community justice is a worthwhile approach. The approach has substantial positive results and experiences most of which are characterized by high levels of contact with various advantages, and opportunities to learn new skills and work that has significant value or the recipients. The studies further suggest that requiring criminal offenders to work within a given community, separating them from other volunteers and stigmatizing them via conspicuous uniforms is a working strategy to relay the message that they can offer something to the community and the society (Antony 38-41).

Therefore, community justice or rather social justice as an alternative to retribution, is likely to offer the best results. Some studies suggest that retribution is a form of shame and the visibility of community as the most appropriate punishment will restore such shaming. Using the information provided as our point of reference, it is evident that the re-conviction figures for both community sentences and custody provide data, which most scholars predict beforehand. In simple terms, the community sentences as currently offered do not have any empirical proof, meaning that prison remains the best option (Pease 7). However, better community sentence regimes, will one day surpass the prisons as the indispensable option in reducing the re-conviction rates through retribution.

Methodology

This study has investigated the topic in question using a multi-level utilization of numerous approaches. This is because from the introduction, the paper has addressed different areas, which add up to the areas of interest as per the topic in question. Therefore, it is only correct that my utilization of various methods has been tailored to address each of the proposed and assigned aims. Notably, the study greatly relies on qualitative collection and evaluation of literature, materials and information, most of which acquired via secondary investigation. There is greater emphasis on the use of this method especially on the interactions that have shaped the background of the research phenomena.

In an attempt to strengthen the findings for my paper, I adopted the triangulation method. By converging numerous sources and espousing on a mix-method design, defined as the process of gathering, evaluating and "mixing" both qualitative and quantitative research methods, it has not only offered me a chance to understand the research problem, but also capture the significant information pertaining the research topic. For this study, the mix-method approach is useful because either quantitative or qualitative methods was not sufficient on its own, to provide adequate information on the research topic. The primary strength of utilizing both methods is that it makes it easy for a competent evaluation.

Measures of retribution

The study borrows from prior studies to ascertain the scales for retribution, which I further reviewed. The items were adapted to measure retribution as revenge and retribution as just deserts. Retribution as revenge refers to the utilization of harsh punishments as a means to get even with the potential offender, a concept, which several scholars commented aims at making the criminal offender suffer (Wenzel and Thielman 457-459). Two subscales measured or recorded retribution as revenge, suffering and getting even. On the other hand, retribution as just deserts refers to the desire to restore justice by allowing the criminal offender to compensate the community in equal terms owing to the harm inflicted.

Discussion

Throughout the paper, there is a consistent definition of the term retribution, which refers to the desire to get even with a criminal offender. The offended team responds to them through making them suffer the same fate they inflicted to their victims. In this case, retribution as justice, involves a payback by the offender for the inflicted harm. I also consider an approach on punishment as a means in, which the criminal offender pays back for the crimes one took or instigated. There are two popular justice-related motives, which appear regularly in literature and they include status, and value restoration.

Research suggests that through criminal activities, the criminals assume superiority, and show disregard for the victims. However, harsh punishment comes in and degrades the offender's status, by empowering the involved victims. Through this, it is apparent that harsh punishment brings about balance. In the second case, crime threatens the guidelines or rules that govern a given society. Punishment, labels the committed offence as wrong and this further restores the society's faith in shared values. Power is substantially relevant to the revenge perspective on retribution. This is because retaliation of a past offence makes the offender suffer degradation and this makes them return the power to the victim or the society.