Retribution features prominently in law, culture, and politics. In criminal law, for example, retribution is a moral imperative. It’s like revenge, but revenge seems to have a more visceral and even amoral connotation.
The theory of retribution is that those who commit crimes deserve to be punished. Punishment is seen as morally good if a lawful punisher gives the offender the punishment he or she deserves. By the same token, it is morally wrong to intentionally punish an innocent person or inflict punishment on wrongdoers disproportionate to the wrongful act. We think of the death penalty as the quintessential act of moral retribution—“an eye for an eye.” To some prosecutors, especially a former district attorney in my jurisdiction, the cry for “vengeance” sounds preferable to retribution; it has a more demagogic appeal.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
