Retaliatory justice is a theory of punishment according to which when an perpetrator breaks the law, justice requires that he suffer in return, and that the response to a crime be proportional to the crime. Unlike revenge, retribution – and therefore retaliatory justice – is not personal, is directed solely against wrongdoing, has inherent limitations, does not involve pleasure in the suffering of others (i.e. schadenfreude, sadism) and applies procedural standards. [1] [2] Retaliatory justice contrasts with other punishment objectives such as deterrence (prevention of future crimes) and rehabilitation of the perpetrator. No other philosophy of punishment attaches so much importance to actus reus (a guilty act) and mens rea (a guilty state of mind). In retaliation, both elements of the crime must be present before a sentence can be imposed. In addition, perpetrators may be punished only for the culpable acts they have actually committed; Those who plan a murder but only manage to hurt a victim should not be punished as severely as those who actually commit the murder. Middle English retribution, from English-French, from late Latin retribution, retribution, from Latin retribution, from Re- + Tribuere to pay â more on tribute Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article on retribution Therefore, a court order of $7,000 in reparations combined with economic retribution is a punishment that better fits the crime committed. In this case, the punishment of the accused, both with a prison sentence and with the obligation to repay every dollar of the money stolen by him. His employer is in good health with a $7,000 refund to replace the money he lost as a result of the defendant`s actions. The term “retribution” means revenge in the simplest sense. Retaliation in the legal world refers to the act of setting a sentence for someone who “fits the crime.” In other words, an eye for one eye or “do to others what you would have done with yourself”.
For example, retaliation may be for a judge to order either a life sentence or the death penalty for someone after convicting them of murdering another person – for a lifetime. To explore this concept, consider the following definition of retaliation. These principles have their flaws and, as such, people have hotly debated them time and time again. Interestingly, the definition of reprisal justice has changed over time. Originally, the idea was that the severity of a person`s sentence should be directly proportional to the crime they have committed. For example, retaliation for a person who stole money would consist of repaying the money, while retaliation for a person who committed murder would consist of receiving either the death penalty or life imprisonment. Both options take a lifetime for a lifetime. Traditionally, philosophers of punishment have compared the feeling of retaliation to utilitarianism. For utilitarians, the punishment is forward-looking, justified by the alleged ability to obtain future social benefits such as crime reduction. For repeat offenders, the punishment is retrograde, justified by the crime that has already been committed. Therefore, the punishment is carried out to atone for the damage already caused. [13] An example of retaliation, in Kennedy v.
Louisiana was tried by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2008. Here, a Louisiana court found Patrick Kennedy guilty of raping his eight-year-old daughter-in-law. Under Louisiana law, the death penalty is a sentence available to those convicted of raping a child under the age of 12. Prosecutors asked for this as punishment for Kennedy, and the jury accepted it. In retaliation, it is inappropriate to allow the culprits to go unpunished. Since punishment must be deserved and must follow guilty acts, it is inappropriate to deny individuals the consequences of their actions. In some ways, punishment is something individuals “deserve” when they exercise their free will in an unacceptable way.
Again, the doctrine of deterrence is different from that of retaliation because true deterrence allows offenders whose skills are needed in the community to avoid punishment. The overarching goal of utilitarianism is deterrence, which makes it possible to pardon the guilty if it is somehow better for the community as a whole. In the 19th century, the philosopher Immanuel Kant argued in Metaphysics of Morality (§ 49 E.) that retribution is the only legitimate form of punishment that the court can prescribe:[8] Transformative justice is a strategy, as its name suggests: it is a way of treating a crime as an educational and transformative opportunity for the perpetrator. Transformative justice focuses more on healing than on other forms of retribution. Transformative justice can be applied to many areas, including family law, corporate law and bankruptcy law. Transformative justice is not so much about whether the perpetrator is allowed to do something similar in the future, but whether the community is willing to support both the abuser and the victim. Economic retaliation, on the other hand, is different. Retaliation for the same crime would most likely result in a prison sentence for the perpetrator. However, without a reparation sentence, a prison sentence is not entirely the crime because the employer still has that $7,000 free. Moreover, if the defendant is in prison, he has no way to earn this money to reimburse his employer. With its prefix re-, which means “return,” retaliation literally means “refund.” And in fact, we usually use it when we talk about personal revenge, whether it`s retaliation for an insult in a high school hallway or retaliation for a guerrilla attack on a government building. But retribution is not always so personal: God takes upon himself the “divine retribution” to man several times in the Old Testament, especially in the Great Flood that annihilates almost all mankind.
And retaliation for criminal acts, usually in the form of a prison sentence, is taken by the state, not by the victims. Restitution and economic retaliation are two different things. Compensation is the act of compensating a person for an injury or loss resulting from the actions of another person. For example, if someone steals $7,000 from their employer, the court can order a payment of $7,000 as a refund as a kind of excuse and a way to get it right. For this reason, restitution is also called “restorative justice” because it “brings back” a person to their position before the incident, or at least as close as possible. .
