Justice and Punishment
Justice governs how individuals, society, and the state interact. In order to maintain law and order, the legislation stipulates that anyone who violates the rules will be subject to punishment. Depending on the crime and the applicable laws, different methods of punishment are justifiable. One of the many theories of punishment is retribution, in which offenders repay the state and community for their wrongdoing.
The Origins of Retributivism
Looking back at the past, retributivism is primarily driven by a sense of moral entitlement (Materni, 2013). Early legal thinkers contended that justice consisted basically of giving the offender what they deserved by punishing them for their crime. Retributivism originated in the Western world approximately 150 years before the enactment of the Model Penal Code in 1962 (Materni, 2013). However, retribution was not induced in mainstream justice but was exerted through cruelty and violence. For instance, in 1757, a king killer named Damiens was sentenced to punishment by being tied to a cart and humiliated in a long walk in front of the Church of Paris. Throughout the sentence, Damiens wore nothing except a shirt, and he carried melting wax weighing two pounds and the knife he used to commit the crime (Materni, 2013). However, the process of punishment was too long and unnecessary for an individual who would end up dying. Thus, in 1764, Cesare Beccaria proposed amendments citing that retribution was tyrannical and there was a need for liberal and humane justice law (Materni, 2013). The Beccaria philosophy was in use for a long time, and many people identified with his sentiments that the purpose of punishment is to prevent further crime from the offender and to deter members of society from committing the same crime. Later in 1790, Kant and Hegel, two proponents of retribution, illuminated the notion that retribution was a form of repaying the debt owed to the state and society by the offender (Marson, 2015). While both scholars agreed on the vindictiveness of retribution, they disagreed on the definition and the expected outcome of retributive justice. For Kant, retribution was the balance needed between the state, the criminal, and the society (Marson, 2015). The offender committed the crime that affected people in the community making the people the primary victims. The state was, therefore, supposed to punish the offender on behalf of the people. Kant believed that retribution was not about collecting the debt owed to the country but about avenging the society, and the state was just a mediator. Hegel developed the philosophy of right where he intimidated that retribution comes from a state's power to punish an offender because the country was significant than the people. Therefore, the state through its laws must demand a form of sacrifice from the criminal because the offender essentially wrongs a function larger than themselves (Marson, 2015). In essence, both Kant and Hegel saw retribution as a form of repaying debt and taking responsibility for the wrongs committed.
The Effectiveness of Retribution
It is from debt repayment that modern-day retribution calls for desert justice where punishment is in proportion to the crime committed. According to Marteni (2013), modern retribution serves punishment on merit and according to strict laws where society has a right to sentence the offender, and the state does not violate the rights of the criminal in the process.
There are three perspectives to see the effectiveness of retribution from its effects on the criminal, the state, and the society. First, retribution is beneficial to the offender as it eradicates the desire to commit a crime again for personal and selfish development. For example, the correction department often reports cases of rehabilitated people who used to be enemies of society because of crime. In fact, not only does retribution through jail terms, incapacitation, and hefty fines reform the offender but also turns the offender into advocates of moral living having known the consequences of retributive justice. Secondly, retribution deters the public from breaking the laws. The young generation has efficiently gained from learning about the correction system and the judicial process which keeps them on the moral path that does not defy the law. Thus, retribution indirectly prevents further crime by warning the rest of society. Thirdly, when people see that offenders receive punishment and take responsibility for their crimes, there is a sense of confidence in the laws of the land and the government of the day. For instance, the incarceration of murderers and serial killers who terrorize citizens boosts the image of state and federal governments as people feel safer because justice is upheld ("The Purposes of Punishment," 2017).
Restorative Justice as an Alternative
Restorative justice process is an alternative to the punitive retribution method. The primary aim of the restorative approach is bringing together all the stakeholders in the offense through the justice department to determine how each stakeholder is affected and then devise a way that everybody can take responsibility in remedying all the wrong occurring due to the crime (Braithwaite, 2017). The restorative approach to justice encourages collaboration between the state, the offender, and the society so that offenders take responsibility for the crime while the victims actively engage the offenders and the justice department in finding a way to remedy the resulting harm. While retribution may exert jail terms and hefty punishments, restorative justice is a form of rehabilitation that seeks to not only rectify the wrongs but also help the individuals grow in the process. Still, fines and probation may be sufficient while restoring justice as opposed to retribution.
Justice regulates the relationship between citizens, society, and the state. Different forms of punishment exist for various crimes, and it is upon the advocates and judges of the law to determine which type of punishment suits the offender and the offense at hand. The restorative approach to justice is an alternative to retribution because it is rehabilitative.
References
Braithwaite, J. (2017). Restorative Justice and De-Professionalization. Penn State University Press. Retrieved from [muse.jhu.edu/article/175203].
Marson, J. (2015). The History of Punishment: What Works for State Crime? Western Michigan University. Retrieved from [scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&context=hilltopreview].
Materni, M. (2013). Criminal Punishment and the Pursuit of Justice. Harvard University. Retrieved from [hls.harvard.edu/content/uploads/2011/09/Michelematerni-criminal punishment.pdf].
The Purposes of Punishment. (2017). Criminal Law Libraries. Retrieved from [open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/1-5-the-purposes-of-punishment/].
