Talk:Retributive justice

message: According to Quinton in 'On Punishment' in Laslett, 'Philosophy, Politics and Society' (1956), the fundamental thesis of retributive justice is that guilt is a necessary condition of punishment. The further claim that it is a sufficient condition for punishment is logically (and in fact morally) independent of this, and it is to this latter claim that the lex talionis (an eye for an eye...&c.) applies. Note that 'an imbalance in the social order' is not an essential part of this theory: a retributionist who considers guilt a sufficient condition for punishment may hold that the punishment is justified eo ipso.
Thus, the first lines of the article are, on this view, inaccurate:
"Retributive justice is a theory of criminal justice wherein punishments are justified on the grounds that the criminal has created an imbalance in the social order that must be addressed by action against the criminal."
and "The theory is often associated with harsh punishment, and the phrase an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' is a commonly heard justification for this theory"
Furthermore, the 'deterrent' argument must be distinguished from the retributionist position, even if the two are often to be found coming from the same person(s). The deterrent argument is a further justification for punishment, over and above the strong retributionist position (guilt = necessary and sufficient) which argues that punishment is justified by guilt de facto.
It is worth noting that Cavell ('The Claim of Reason', 1974) argues that a retributivist holds that guilt is, in fact, a sufficient, as well as necessary condition for punishment, but that the first of these facts arises not from the fact that crime creates a 'social imbalance', but simply because the criminal is guilty. This really seems to be the crux of the matter - a retributionist, in this (more conventional) sense holds that guilt demands punishment. The social question is a further consideration.
Quinton and Cavell are quite an authority on this issue (note that Rawls, 1952, agrees with Quinton), and I think the article needs clearing up, although I don't want to tamper with it without the author's consent. In conclusion, I think that the 'social imbalance' point should be reconsidered, and that the article must differentiate clearly between the four independent positions I have mentioned: guilt is a necessary condition of punishment; guilt is a sufficient condition of punishment; lex talionis: the degree of punishment should somehow 'match' the seriousness of the crime; punishment can have a deterrent effect on potential criminals.
:Agreed. I replaced social order with moral order. Punishment as a way to restore social order sounds utilitarian. Illuminatingvision 14:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure I agree with this article 

message: Why is there a discursion on Deterrence Theory of punishment in the article about the Retribution Theory, with only a small nod to Retributivists ("Furthermore, there are many who advocate punishment of criminals regardless of the presence or absence of a deterrent effect. The belief underlying this view is that the need for a criminal to be punished is a requirement that comes from basic fairness and justice and not necessarily as a result of deterrence.")? Also, Deterrence links to a psychology stub which barely summarizes Deterrence Theory.
I suggest creating a new stub (e.g., Deterrence (penology)), moving the stuff from here over there, and beefing up the discussion of Retribution Theory here. » MonkeeSage « 00:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retribution vs. Deterrence 

message: At the moment, this article takes RJ to be a particular kind of answer to the question of punishment. But at least in political philosophy, RJ is the name of that question: what, if anything, justifies punishment? The answer described here is usually known as 'retributivism'. Other answers to the question of RJ include communicative and deterrence theories. I'm planning to say something about this in my renovation of Justice (see above), but I'm wondering whether the planned section on theories of RJ should go here instead. Comments welcome... Cheers, --Sam Clark 11:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I suggest a name change. Illuminatingvision 14:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Retributive justice as question rather than answer

message: This seems just to be a mishmash of 'tough on crime' examples, all of which are dubiously conflated as "retributive justice". What does retributive justice mean exactly? Does it mean philosophical retribution? If so, what do broken windows and three strikes have to do with that?  Nothing. Philosophical retribution is all about proportionate punishment based on reasoning about the crime itself. The article is  directionless. Needs either a major rewrite or deletion. Illuminatingvision 07:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also not really sure what this page is about. There are various theories of retributivism, but in general they hold that one's just desert for their offense is a sufficient reason or duty to punish that individual. It's possible that in its application, there could be a deontological or consequentialist retributivism. But this page seems to be a mishmash of random things related to retribution. An eye-for-an-eye is not necessarily retributive justice, for example. It is an argument of strict proportionality, and the underlying moral theory of punishment is not necessarily retributivism. Captchacatcher (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has major problems 

message: The meaning of retributive justice is ambiguous. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy uses it in the same way as here, but this way contradicts its use in Justice (see the earlier comment, "Retributive justice as question rather than answer").
I think "Retributivism" is probably the better title, if only to avoid confusion and contradiction. I don't know how to change the name, so perhaps someone else could do it if people agree. Illuminatingvision 14:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks that's been fixed. Illuminatingvision 04:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposing name change

message: "Retributive justice is a theory of justice that considers that proportionate punishment is a morally acceptable response to crime, regardless of whether the punishment causes any tangible benefits."
Retribution also means prosperity, proportionate response.
Phalanx Pursos 21:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very nice first liner