Changes

'''Retributive''' [[justice]] is a [[theory]] of justice that considers that [[punishment]], if [[proportionate]], is a [[morally]] acceptable [[response]] to [[crime]], with an eye to the [[satisfaction]] and [[psychological]] benefits it can bestow to the aggrieved party, its intimates and [[society]].

'''Retributive''' [[justice]] is a [[theory]] of justice that considers that [[punishment]], if [[proportionate]], is a [[morally]] acceptable [[response]] to [[crime]], with an eye to the [[satisfaction]] and [[psychological]] benefits it can bestow to the aggrieved party, its intimates and [[society]].

==Definition==

==Definition==

In [[ethics]] and [[law]], "Let the punishment fit the crime" is the principle that the severity of penalty for a misdeed or wrongdoing should be reasonable and [[proportionate]] to the severity of the infraction. The [[concept]] is common to most [[cultures]] throughout the world. Its [[presence]] in the ancient [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish Jewish] [[culture]] is shown by its inclusion in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah law of Moses], specifically in [https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Book_of_Deutoronomy#Chapter_.19 Deuteronomy 19]:17-21, and [https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Book_of_Exodus#Chapter_.21 Exodus 21]:23-21:27, which includes the punishments of "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."[https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Book_of_Exodus#Chapter_.21] That phrasing in turn resembles the older [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi Code of Hammurabi]. Many other [[documents]] [[reflect]] this [[value]] in the world's [[cultures]]. However, the [[judgment]] of whether a punishment is appropriately severe can vary greatly between cultures and [[individuals]].

In [[ethics]] and [[law]], "Let the punishment fit the crime" is the principle that the severity of penalty for a misdeed or wrongdoing should be reasonable and [[proportionate]] to the severity of the infraction. The [[concept]] is common to most [[cultures]] throughout the world. Its [[presence]] in the ancient [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish Jewish] [[culture]] is shown by its inclusion in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah law of Moses], specifically in [https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Book_of_Deutoronomy#Chapter_.19 Deuteronomy 19]:17-21, and [https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Book_of_Exodus#Chapter_.21 Exodus 21]:23-21:27, which includes the punishments of "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."[https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Book_of_Exodus#Chapter_.21] That phrasing in turn resembles the older [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi Code of Hammurabi]. Many other [[documents]] [[reflect]] this [[value]] in the world's [[cultures]]. However, the [[judgment]] of whether a punishment is appropriately severe can vary greatly between cultures and [[individuals]].

<center>For lessons on the related topic of '''''[[Justice]]''''', follow [https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Justice '''''this link'''''].</center>

<center>For lessons on the related topic of '''''[[Justice]]''''', follow [https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Justice '''''this link'''''].</center>

<center>For lessons on the related topic of '''''[[Vengeance]]''''', follow [https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Vengeance '''''this link'''''].</center>

<center>For lessons on the related topic of '''''[[Vengeance]]''''', follow [https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Vengeance '''''this link'''''].</center>

Depending on the retributivist, the crime's level of severity might be determined by the amount of harm, unfair advantage or [[moral]] imbalance the [[crime]] caused.

Depending on the retributivist, the crime's level of severity might be determined by the amount of harm, unfair advantage or [[moral]] imbalance the [[crime]] caused.

==History==

==History==

In the early period of all [[systems]] of [[law]] the redress of wrongs takes precedence over the enforcement of contract rights, and a rough sense of [[justice]] demands the infliction of [[proportionate]] loss and [[pain]] on the aggressor as he has inflicted on his victim. Hence the prominence of the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_eye_for_an_eye lex talionis]" in ancient [[law]]. The [[Bible]] is no exception: in its oldest form it included the "lex talionis," the [[law]] of "[[measure]] for measure" (this is only the [[literal]] [[translation]] of middah ke-neged middah).

In the early period of all [[systems]] of [[law]] the redress of wrongs takes precedence over the enforcement of contract rights, and a rough sense of [[justice]] demands the infliction of [[proportionate]] loss and [[pain]] on the aggressor as he has inflicted on his victim. Hence the prominence of the "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_eye_for_an_eye lex talionis]" in ancient [[law]]. The [[Bible]] is no exception: in its oldest form it included the "lex talionis," the [[law]] of "[[measure]] for measure" (this is only the [[literal]] [[translation]] of middah ke-neged middah).

In the 19th century, [[philosopher]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant Immanuel Kant] wrote in ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=OhNR-xIkSVoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=metaphysical+elements+of+justice&source=bl&ots=VrCVgJehrs&sig=GT_c2LatrLp8GiQCQLXToSPi8jM&hl=en&ei=FNXAS4zRIoP48AbknJzMCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false The Metaphysical Elements of Justice]'' of retribution as a legal principle: "Judicial punishment can never be used merely as a means to promote some other [[good]] for the criminal himself or for civil [[society]], but instead it must in all cases be imposed on him only on the ground that he has committed a [[crime]]."

In the 19th century, [[philosopher]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant Immanuel Kant] wrote in ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=OhNR-xIkSVoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=metaphysical+elements+of+justice&source=bl&ots=VrCVgJehrs&sig=GT_c2LatrLp8GiQCQLXToSPi8jM&hl=en&ei=FNXAS4zRIoP48AbknJzMCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false The Metaphysical Elements of Justice]'' of retribution as a legal principle: "Judicial punishment can never be used merely as a means to promote some other [[good]] for the criminal himself or for civil [[society]], but instead it must in all cases be imposed on him only on the ground that he has committed a [[crime]]."

Immanuel Kant regards punishment as a matter of [[justice]]. He states that if the [[guilty]] are not punished, [[justice]] is not done.  

Immanuel Kant regards punishment as a matter of [[justice]]. He states that if the [[guilty]] are not punished, [[justice]] is not done.  

==Subtypes==

==Subtypes==

There are two distinct [[types]] of retributive [[justice]]. The [[classical]] definition [[embraces]] the [[idea]] that the amount of punishment must be [[proportionate]] to the amount of harm caused by the offense. A more recent version advocated by the philosopher [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Davis Michael Davis] dismisses this [[idea]] and replaces it with the idea that the amount of punishment must be proportionate to the amount of unfair advantage gained by the wrongdoer. Davis introduced this version of retributive justice in the early 1980s, at a time when retributive justice was making a resurgence within the [[philosophy]] of [[law]] [[community]], perhaps due to the practical failings of reform [[theory]] in the previous decades.

There are two distinct [[types]] of retributive [[justice]]. The [[classical]] definition [[embraces]] the [[idea]] that the amount of punishment must be [[proportionate]] to the amount of harm caused by the offense. A more recent version advocated by the philosopher [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Davis Michael Davis] dismisses this [[idea]] and replaces it with the idea that the amount of punishment must be proportionate to the amount of unfair advantage gained by the wrongdoer. Davis introduced this version of retributive justice in the early 1980s, at a time when retributive justice was making a resurgence within the [[philosophy]] of [[law]] [[community]], perhaps due to the practical failings of reform [[theory]] in the previous decades.

==Criticism==

==Criticism==

According to some [[theories]] of [[ethics]], punishment (or proportionate punishment) is self-contradictory in the sense that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_don%27t_make_a_right Two wrongs don't make a right]".

According to some [[theories]] of [[ethics]], punishment (or proportionate punishment) is self-contradictory in the sense that "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_don%27t_make_a_right Two wrongs don't make a right]".

Some hold that the [[motive]] behind the Christian sanction for [[interpersonal]] relations ("turn the other cheek" before seeking retribution for a wrong), and the motive behind the sanctions for social [[magistrates]] (which include the application of retributive justice, e.g., "just stonings"), [[conflict]]. On the other hand, the motives for the social sanctions can be attributed to other justifications beyond simple retaliation.

Some hold that the [[motive]] behind the Christian sanction for [[interpersonal]] relations ("turn the other cheek" before seeking retribution for a wrong), and the motive behind the sanctions for social [[magistrates]] (which include the application of retributive justice, e.g., "just stonings"), [[conflict]]. On the other hand, the motives for the social sanctions can be attributed to other justifications beyond simple retaliation.

Many more [[jurisdictions]] following the retributive [[philosophy]], especially in the United States, follow a set tariff, where [[judges]] impose a penalty for a [[crime]] within the range set by the tariff. As a result, some [[argue]] that judges do not have enough discretion to allow for mitigating factors, leading to unjust [[decisions]] under certain circumstances. In the case of fines, the [[financial]] position of an offender is not taken into account, leading to situations where an unemployed man and a millionaire could be forced to pay the same fine, creating an unjust situation; either the fine would be too punitive for the unemployed offender, or not large enough to punish the millionaire.

Many more [[jurisdictions]] following the retributive [[philosophy]], especially in the United States, follow a set tariff, where [[judges]] impose a penalty for a [[crime]] within the range set by the tariff. As a result, some [[argue]] that judges do not have enough discretion to allow for mitigating factors, leading to unjust [[decisions]] under certain circumstances. In the case of fines, the [[financial]] position of an offender is not taken into account, leading to situations where an unemployed man and a millionaire could be forced to pay the same fine, creating an unjust situation; either the fine would be too punitive for the unemployed offender, or not large enough to punish the millionaire.

==Alternatives==

==Alternatives==

Alternatives to retributive measures include [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatric_imprisonment psychiatric imprisonment], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice restorative justice] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_justice transformative justice]. A general overview of criminal [[justice]] puts each of these [[ideals]] in context.

Alternatives to retributive measures include [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatric_imprisonment psychiatric imprisonment], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice restorative justice] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_justice transformative justice]. A general overview of criminal [[justice]] puts each of these [[ideals]] in context.

One [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian libertarian] approach to this issue argues that full restitution (in the broad, rather than technical legal, sense) is compatible with both retributivism and a utilitarian [[degree]] of deterrence.

One [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian libertarian] approach to this issue argues that full restitution (in the broad, rather than technical legal, sense) is compatible with both retributivism and a utilitarian [[degree]] of deterrence.

==See also==

==See also==

*'''''[[Discipline]]'''''

*'''''[[Discipline]]'''''

[[Category: Law]]

[[Category: Law]]