The Aims of Punishment Retribution Crime & Punishment The Aims of Punishment Retribution

The Theory of Retribution Retribution means attempting to return to a situation of harmony. In terms of punishment this means the harm or damage inflicted by the punishment should be equal to that inflicted by the crime. There are two parts to retribution Revenge – getting your own back on someone who has done something wrong to you Restoration – Making amends for what we have done. Restoring the situation to its previous situation of balance

Benefits of Retribution Some people see revenge as a good motive because it shows we understand the severity of the crime and we are making sure that the criminal can derive no benefit from their crime It shows criminal that there are dire consequences of such law breaking and that as a society we take crime seriously. Revenge can also make victims feel better because they see the criminal feel some of the suffering they felt and can see justice being done on their behalf.

Other Benefits of Retribution Restorative retribution makes the criminal pay something back to society for the damage they have caused. This might take the form of Community Service Orders which force the criminal to work to improve the community in some way to make amends for what they have done. HOWEVER this only works for some crimes.

Drawbacks of Retribution If we start out with revenge as an aim where will it end. Those we take revenge on will want revenge and so on until there is a cycle of violence we cannot stop. If society takes revenge against its people then this invites the people to take revenge against society It also means that those not involved in the initial wrongdoing will be affected and damaged by the cycle of revenge which is wrong.

More Drawbacks of Retribution Is revenge the right response to society’s problems Getting back at people by doing to them what they did to others seems to make the action seem ok since the state is doing it to them and the state should not do things which are wrong. If anything it may be worse when it is done as a punishment because we have decided coldly and rationally to do it while the criminal may have committed the crime on the spur of the moment.

Moral Implications of Retribution Would we really feel satisfied at beating up someone who beat us up or are we just as bad as the bully? If revenge gets out of hand will the first victim really feel any joy at watching this cycle of revenge hurt more and more people, many of them innocent like them? How can we make restorative retribution work ? Do we have to create a table of how severe each crimes retribution would be? Are all types of one crime equally bad? Can we judge all murders the same regardless of the circumstances?

Religious Views of Retribution The Old Testament famously announces that we should seek an “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” in matters of justice. This would seem to endorse revenge as a punishment However this was seen to be a way of stabilising a fractured society who had no cohesion and were still emerging as a nation state under difficult circumstances. When we look at the Old Testament we find many punishments which today we would find strange such as those on the next page.

Strange Bible laws The Old Testament says an eye for an eye but it also says:- Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric) Don't cut your hair nor shave. Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. If a man cheats on his wife, or vice versa, both the man and the woman must die.   Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death.  People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community.  And these are just the ones that are acceptable to use here! Should we apply these laws as well as the eye for an eye idea?

An Eye for an Eye The earliest retribution principle, the lex talionis (literally, "law of the same kind"), is found in the Old Testament formula of an "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Deut. 19:21; see also Exod. 21:24, Lev. 24:23). The principle of the talionis has often been compared to vengeance, and indeed the emotional satisfaction of the victim plays a large part in the theory of retribution, especially in the symbolic idea of making the punishment fit the crime. Hebrew Law had death penalties for many crimes, the “eye for eye” was to restrict compensation to the value of the loss. Thus, it might be better read 'only one eye for one eye'.

The Christian response to Lex Talionis Jesus responded to the idea of “an eye for an eye” by saying: “You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38–39) In this example Jesus is clearly teaching that we should not seek revenge, we should not make things worse by engaging in the cycle of violence

In another place Jesus says “But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:27-31.) This is not only a call to avoid revenge but to forgive our enemies and help those in need around us.

More ideas about an eye for an eye In the same passage of the Old Testament which we find some of the laws we looked at earlier we also find another call to avoid revenge; "You will not exact vengeance on, or bear any sort of grudge against, the members of your people, but will love your fellow as yourself." (Leviticus 19:18) This perhaps suggests that the Old Testament punishments are not to be taken literally but rather they should be used as a way to judge how unacceptable certain crimes are and how God views such offences. We therefore cannot use these points as a rigid law to support a punishment being equal to a crime

Christians and Retribution Christians believe that retribution will be faced when they die and their actions will either result in them going to heaven or hell. Hell is not a short term sentence but is for all eternity without chance of parole but admittedly this is only for those who do not seek forgiveness for their sins. This is why Christians believe you should meet hate with love in order to turn a negative destructive reaction into a positive creative one. Martin Luther King spoke out against revenge by stating “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

Buddhists and Retribution Buddhists would certainly be against the idea of revenge, they believe that people should live in a way which does no harm to anyone else, regardless of the situation. Buddhists however believe in rebirth which means that after you die you are reborn as someone or something else. They believe that our good and bad actions in this life will decide if we have a better or worse life next time around. This is the law of kamma and it means that our actions , good or bad , have long term consequences even beyond this life. They don’t believe in heaven or hell but that you constantly shape the next version of you based on the actions of this life.

A Secular view of Retribution Humanists believe that the best form of punishment is one which will make it less likely that the crime will happen again. However they believe that every person and every situation is different so we cannot use rigid punishments to punish everyone who commits the same crime. They believe we have to take circumstances into account.

They would also worry that revenge could be carried out on the wrong person if mistakes were made as they have been in the past when innocent people were imprisoned or hung for crimes committed by others. This would only make the situation worse as now there was another person to feel they had a right to revenge However they would be able to see the benefits of a restorative form of retribution which makes amends for the specific crime committed by the person and allows for something positive to come from it.

Scottish forms of Retribution When a person is fined the money is retribution for their crimes, a fee has been set which has to be paid to make amends for what they have done. Community Service is retribution where we give something back to the community to make up for what we have done. Finally prison takes away your freedom. The worse your offence the more time is needed to be spent in prison to balance up the wrong you have done. In some extreme cases you may need to spend the rest of your life in prison to make up for a terrible crime such as murder or terrorism.