Justice as Retribution: Revenge, Just Deserts, and Punishment

Introduction

Every individual has a perception toward crime, justice, criminals, and many other aspects related to criminal behavior. On hearing the term "criminal," people react differently. There are those who feel that a criminal deserves to die, others feel they should rot in prison, and many hold other divergent views. However, does it ever occur that a person can be labeled a criminal through a legal process even though they did not take part in the crime? This is a serious issue that requires critical reasoning before judging or labeling others. To the central point, retribution is the main subject of this paper. In the criminal context, the term retribution suggests revenge — a revenge that the court delivers, largely unseen by the general public. However, a critical scrutiny suggests that the legal process is also a tool for delivering 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, which does not differ substantially from the concept of "an eye for an eye." This paper explores various materials in an attempt to provide adequate information concerning justice as retribution.

Over the past decade, there has been a paradigm shift in the legal system, one that has seen the adoption of punitive punishment across the globe. The shift toward "punitive populism" has resulted in an increase in imprisonment rates and, consequently, an increase in the number of offenders in prison. The prison population is worrying, with current statistics suggesting a twofold rise. If the witnessed trends are maintained, the number of prisoners could double within a short period, leading to adverse effects — most notably a significant burden of cost and maintenance that taxpayers will have to bear (Allen 41–42).

It is difficult to determine precisely why people call for harsh punishment for criminal offenders, but speculation suggests that the guiding motivation appears to be the pursuit of retribution. Retribution — also known as inter alia — is defined as the advocacy of penalty to restore justice and equilibrium in society. It also qualifies as a preference for retaliation and an expression of vindictiveness. Overall, there is a lack of adequate research on retribution, which has resulted in insufficient and varied definitions of the term. Notably, there are two main approaches to retribution.

On one hand, retribution is associated with restoring a sense of justice by obtaining or demanding compensation proportional to the damages suffered by the victim (retribution as just deserts). On the other hand, it is the less constructive use of punishment to take revenge on the offender and make them suffer (retribution as a form of revenge). These two dimensions do not show clear empirical differences. Although some studies suggest a variation between them, it remains difficult to understand how justice can take the form of purely punitive punishment (Barton 12–80).

Social justice, which is most applicable in community justice settings, is defined as the attempt to restore society through a partnership between local government, the private sector, and the community. This approach collectively addresses crime prevention and justice, but offers new ways of thinking that move away from retribution. In most cases, community justice draws heavily from the concepts of restorative justice. Many studies have provided empirical evidence suggesting that restorative justice is the focal point of community justice, which aims at developing community safety and establishing desired justice outcomes beyond retribution (Clear and John 3–4).

Community justice also borrows from a wide range of ideas, including community crime prevention, community policing, restorative justice sanctioning approaches, and others. In order to clarify the meaning of retribution and further assess whether the approach constitutes a genuine form of justice, this paper evaluates the goals of punishment that arise from the practice of sentencing. Retribution as revenge, however, arises from divergent ideological views evident in group-based dominance as outlined by Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), and collective security as outlined by Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA). Notably, harsh punishments given to offenders show a positive correlation with and support for the concept of retribution as revenge (Pratto et al. 741–763).

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 doing so, the justice system fulfills its role of delivering justice to victims. However, people's perceptions of the purpose of punishment fall into two broad categories: instrumental objectives and retributive objectives. Instrumental objectives provide justification in the context of future benefits — namely, the possibility of reduced crime. While there is some likelihood of achieving this objective (Carlsmith, Darley, and Robinson 284–299), research suggests that this approach tends to lead to retaliation rather than the prevention of future wrongdoing.

Background: Goals of Punishment and Retributive Objectives

Retributive objectives, by contrast, are central to the idea that criminal offenders deserve punishment because they have violated society's rules, and that such punishment must be proportional to the crimes committed. Additionally, the intensity of a punishment should reflect the perceived seriousness of the offense, the offender's intent, and their degree of accountability. While retribution appears to correlate with the repayment of harmful acts, this approach also encompasses numerous non-instrumental elements of punishment, such as concerns about justice, proportionality, morality, social cohesion, and retaliation for the offense.

These elements offer a path to measuring retribution and have prompted numerous studies in this field. Research argues for retribution as both just deserts and as revenge. In the first case, the offender repays the harm inflicted on victims, thereby achieving justice. This restoration of justice is accomplished through proportionality and a fair process (Barton 12–80). By clearing the moral debt, there is a redistribution of negative and positive experiences, and social equilibrium is restored. However, a fair process is required, one that calibrates the severity of punishment to the seriousness of the offense.

In the case of retribution as revenge, people seek punishment not only as a means to achieve equilibrium but also as outright retaliation. Here, it is the society that evens the score with the offender, rather than the offender simply compensating for committed crimes. The concept of revenge always involves the emotional satisfaction of witnessing the offender suffer. Two important lessons emerge from this perspective: the severity of the offense does not necessarily set an upper boundary on the harshness of punishment, and equilibrium is considered achieved even if the suffering imposed by punishment exceeds the seriousness of the crime.

There is a general consensus that the justice system is fair in administering justice to both the offender and the victim. Additionally, it is widely accepted that someone must answer for crimes committed and the suffering inflicted on innocent people, as a means of reducing or eliminating criminal activity. In doing so, there is a sense that justice has been achieved for both parties. What many people overlook is that justice can function as a form of revenge — a proposition that most tend to resist. The topic is highly debatable, and studying it closely will provide insight into judicial sentencing. Such research will also yield substantial information on the conceptual arguments of sociology, philosophy, politics, and economics and their relationship to the administration of justice.

The following research questions guide the investigation for this paper:

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

2) Is justice genuinely achieved through retribution?

Importance of the Study and Research Questions

Retribution is central to the desire that criminal offenders experience their "just deserts" — receiving what is rightfully owed as a consequence of their actions. This desire for "just deserts" is apparent in the concept of "an eye for an eye," which is core to the lex talionis, from which the principle of "retaliation" derives. In the biblical context, the law books provide a series of rules specifying punishments for different offenses. The law of retaliation holds that a criminal offender should suffer the same injury they inflicted on the victim. The desire for just deserts also appears as a requirement for moral equilibrium, since offenders must pay a moral debt (Jacoby 115).

Prior studies further suggest a correlation between vengeance and justice, because both aim at making the world a fairer place by achieving moral balance. There is a significant relationship between revenge and punishment: revenge is inclined toward returning harm equal in measure to the harm suffered. This is the objective of the lex talionis, which aims to ensure the balance of the moral world using proportional harms — an eye for an eye, not two eyes for an eye. As one aspect of justice, vengeance is therefore instrumental in realizing a balance of harms. The key distinction between retributive punishment in the administration of justice and simple revenge is that retributive punishment operates through structured institutions (Heather and Strang 55–76).

These institutions separate the moral balancing act from the emotional perspective of the individual victim. It is this notion of balancing harms as a means to restore equilibrium that many theorists reject, leading them also to reject the punitive and retributive justice described in the biblical law books. Some scholars have criticized the criminal justice system for two main reasons: first, they argue that it has failed because it relies on traditional court-based responses that are fundamentally retributive; and second, they contend that the criminal justice system therefore aims primarily at achieving retaliation and punishment — that is, retributive justice (McKee and Feather 138–163).

Literature Review

Within the framework of restorative justice, a number of prior studies argue that punishment, retribution, and retributive justice are incompatible with restoration. In the proper sense of these critiques, both "retribution" and "retributive" refer to punishment imposed on a wrongdoer as a form of just deserts — meaning the wrongdoer deserves the punishment because they brought it upon themselves. The concept of just deserts in retribution thus refers to the rationale behind punishment: arising from the offense, the justice system opts for repayment as a way to restore balance by punishing the offender (Barton 41–53).

Contemporary philosophers have largely patronized retributive punishment. Some suggest that retributive justice is the infliction of physical punishment as a deserved response to a moral evil. Many Christian thinkers have absorbed much of the Old Testament framework while attempting to avoid the pursuit of personal vengeance — a tension rooted in the lex talionis paradigm (Jacoby 115). Some scholars therefore argue that Christians should lead campaigns against retribution and advocate instead for community or social justice. They maintain that social justice does not support revenge, and numerous studies have supported this position. Offenders participating in community service programs have demonstrated significant capacity for positive change in community settings.

Empirical data have shown that community programs instill values that reduce reconviction rates. Offenders who have experienced community justice report it as a worthwhile approach, characterized by high levels of engagement with opportunities to learn new skills and to contribute work of genuine value. Studies further suggest that requiring criminal offenders to work within a given community — even where they are separated from volunteers and identified through conspicuous uniforms — effectively communicates that they can offer something meaningful to society (Antony 38–41).

Community or social justice as an alternative to retribution therefore appears likely to offer better outcomes. Some studies suggest that retribution functions as a form of shaming, and that the visibility of community service as punishment can restore that sense of accountability without purely punitive effects. Based on the available data, however, re-conviction figures for community sentences and custody show outcomes that many scholars predict in advance. In practical terms, community sentences as currently structured lack strong empirical proof of superiority, meaning that prison remains the most commonly relied-upon option (Pease 7). Nevertheless, more robust community sentence regimes may eventually surpass imprisonment as the preferred strategy for reducing re-conviction rates.

This study has investigated the topic using a multi-level approach employing numerous methods. Because the paper addresses different areas that together constitute the research topic, it is appropriate that various methods have been tailored to address each assigned aim. The study relies primarily on qualitative collection and evaluation of literature, materials, and information, most of which was acquired through secondary investigation. Greater emphasis is placed on this method, particularly regarding the interactions that have shaped the background of the research phenomenon.

In an attempt to strengthen the findings, a triangulation method was adopted. By converging numerous sources and employing a mixed-method design — defined as the process of gathering, evaluating, and combining both qualitative and quantitative research methods — the study offers an opportunity not only to understand the research problem but also to capture significant information pertaining to the research topic. The mixed-method approach is appropriate here because neither quantitative nor qualitative methods alone would be sufficient to provide adequate information on the topic. The primary strength of utilizing both methods is that it facilitates a more thorough and competent evaluation.

The study draws on prior research to ascertain the scales used to measure retribution, which were reviewed and adapted. 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 of getting even with the offender — a concept that several scholars describe as aimed at making the offender suffer (Wenzel and Thielmann 457–459). Two subscales were used to measure retribution as revenge: suffering and getting even. Retribution as just deserts, by contrast, refers to the desire to restore justice by requiring the criminal offender to compensate the community proportionally for the harm inflicted.

Throughout this paper, retribution has been consistently defined as the desire to get even with a criminal offender. The aggrieved party responds by making the offender suffer the same fate they inflicted on their victims. In this framing, retribution as justice involves a payback by the offender for the harm they caused. An approach to punishment as the means by which the criminal offender repays for their crimes is also considered. Two popular justice-related motives appear regularly in the literature: status restoration and value restoration.

Research suggests that through criminal activity, offenders assert superiority and show disregard for their victims. Harsh punishment counters this by degrading the offender's status and empowering the victim. Through this process, harsh punishment brings about a form of balance. In the second case, crime threatens the norms and rules that govern society. Punishment labels the committed offense as wrong, thereby restoring society's faith in shared values. Power is substantially relevant to the revenge perspective on retribution, because retaliation of a past offense degrades the offender and symbolically returns power to the victim or to society.

On the other hand, the victim or society achieves value restoration when an offender compensates in proportion to the harm caused. Ideological dispositions such as Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) have both shown significant relevance to understanding retribution. RWA and SDO operate through different motivational factors, which explains their varied predictions about punitive attitudes in different situations (Thomson, Eva, and Sidanius 1455–1464). Research suggests that RWA represents the co-variation of three attitudinal factors: authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism. This factor is central to an individual's social personality and is associated with support for harsh punishments and retributive responses to criminal offenses.

RWA also shows correlations with moral balance, social constructiveness, deterrence, and incapacitation, but not with revenge in its personal form. Individuals high in RWA support harsh punishment only when it occurs within the legal system, not when the victim personally seeks revenge (Umbreit 52–57). From this, we can deduce that RWA is positively linked to both approaches of retribution. SDO, by contrast, refers to the preference for hierarchical relationships between groups and for in-group dominance over out-groups. This aspect captures the motivational objective of group dominance, authority, and superiority. It is predisposed by a tough-minded personality, and encompasses two orientations: a general preference for inequality and a preference for one's own group to dominate others. People high in SDO are therefore likely to endorse attitudes that reinforce status hierarchies, and most demonstrate a tendency to support punitive attitudes (Pratto et al. 741–763).

Conclusion

Moore, David. "Shame, Forgiveness, and Juvenile Justice." Criminal Justice Ethics, Winter/Spring, 12.1 (1993): 3–25.

Pease, Ken. Prison, Community Sentencing and Crime. London: Civitas, 2010. Print.

Pratto, Felicia, et al. "Social Dominance Orientation: A Personality Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67.4 (1994): 741–763. Print.

Thomsen, Lotte, Eva G. T. Green, and Jim Sidanius. "We Will Hunt Them Down: How Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism Fuel Ethnic Persecution of Immigrants in Fundamentally Different Ways." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44.6 (2008): 1455–1464. Print.

Umbreit, Mark S. "Crime Victims Seeking Fairness, Not Revenge: Towards Restorative Justice." Federal Probation, 53.3 (1989): 52–57. Print.

Wenzel, Michael, and Ines Thielmann. "Why We Punish in the Name of Justice: Just Desert vs. Value Restoration and the Role of Social Identity." Social Justice Research, 19.4 (2006): 457–459. Print.