TITLE

The Three Rs: Retribution, Revenge, and Reparation

AUTHOR(S)
Sommers, Tamler
PUB. DATE
June 2016
SOURCE
Philosophia;Jun2016, Vol. 44 Issue 2, p327
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
Nearly all retributive theories of punishment adopt the following model. Punishments are justified when the wrongdoers receive the punishment they deserve. A deserved punishment is one that is proportionate to the offender's culpability. Culpability has two components: (1) the severity of the wrong, and (2) the offender's blameworthiness. The broader aim of this article is to outline an alternative retributivist model that directly involves the victim in the determination of the appropriate and just punishment. The narrower aim is to show that the methodology employed by Michael Moore (1997) in support of the standard retributive model in fact better supports this alternative model. Moore himself explicitly rejects the idea that victims can play a role in determining just punishments, because this would entail assigning different punishments to equally culpable offenders. When properly applied, however, Moore's method for justifying retributivism results in an approach that directly involves the victim in the punishment process.
ACCESSION #
117417542

 

Related Articles

  • RETRIBUTION: THE CENTRAL AIM OF PUNISHMENT. Bradley, Gerard V. // Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy;Fall2003, Vol. 27 Issue 1, p19 

    Discusses retribution as the moral justification for the aim of punishment. Common misconceptions about restitution; Central focus of punishment; Kinds of victimless crimes.

  • Retributivism In Extremis. Husak, Douglas // Law & Philosophy;Jan2013, Vol. 32 Issue 1, p3 

    I defend two objections to Tadros's views on punishment. First, I allege that his criticisms of retributivism are persuasive only against extreme versions that provide no justificatory place for instrumentalist objectives. His attack fails against a version of retributivism that recognizes a...

  • AN EXPLANATION OF RETRIBUTION. OLDENQUIST, ANDREW // Journal of Philosophy;Sep1988, Vol. 85 Issue 9, p464 

    The article discusses the arguments that explain the nature and function retribution for crimes. The first argument aims to establish the social need for retribution, on the grounds that the existence of moral communities depends on the acceptance of retributive justice, while the second...

  • PUNISHMENT AND REPARATION. Griseri, Paul // Philosophical Quarterly;Oct1985, Vol. 35 Issue 141, p394 

    Focuses on the concept of punishment and reparation in the rule of law. Accounts of annulment or retribution which seem to construe the harm of an offence as being the violation of a rule; Kinds of harm or damage involved in an offence; Factors to consider in restoring a rule in a community.

  • DETERRENCE IN A SEA OF "JUST DESERTS": ARE UTILITARIAN GOALS ACHIEVABLE IN A WORLD OF "LIMITING RETRIBUTIVISM"? HAIST, MATTHEW // Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology;Summer2009, Vol. 99 Issue 3, p789 

    Recent scholarship on theories of criminal punishment has increasingly focused on retributivist justifications for punishment. While within this retributivist camp opinions differ as to the particulars of such policies, there is general agreement that criminals getting what they deserve, that...

  • The triumph of vengeance over retribution: the United States Supreme Court and the death penalty. Haas, Kenneth C. // Crime, Law & Social Change;1994, Vol. 21 Issue 2, p127 

    In this article the author uses a review of Welsh S. White's The Death Penalty in the Nineties as a framework for analyzing recent trends in the United States Supreme Court's death penalty jurisprudence. Since 1976 the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of capital punishment at least...

  • Retributivism: The Right and the Good. Haque, Adil // Law & Philosophy;Jan2013, Vol. 32 Issue 1, p59 

    Victor Tadros claims that punishment must be justified either instrumentally or on the grounds that deserved punishment is intrinisically good. However, if we have deontic reasons to punish wrongdoers then these reasons could justify punishment non-instrumentally. Morever, even if the punishment...

  • Restoration and Retribution: How Including Retributive Components Affects the Acceptability of Restorative Justice Procedures. Gromet, Dena M.; Darley, John M. // Social Justice Research;Dec2006, Vol. 19 Issue 4, p395 

    Two studies investigated people’s perceptions of the acceptability of restorative justice procedures for handling crimes that differ in severity. Results from Study 1 supported our hypothesis that as crimes increase in seriousness, people require a restorative justice procedure that also...

  • Rehabilitating Retributivism. Berman, Mitchell // Law & Philosophy;Jan2013, Vol. 32 Issue 1, p83 

    This review essay of Victor Tadros's new book, 'The Ends of Harm: The Moral Foundations of Criminal Law,' responds to Tadros's energetic and sophisticated attacks on retributivist justifications for criminal punishment. I argue, in a nutshell, that those attacks fail. In defending retributivism,...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics