Why We Punish in the Name of Justice: Just Desert versus Value Restoration and the Role of Social Identity |
| |
| Authors: | Michael Wenzel Ines Thielmann |
| |
| Affiliation: | (1) School of Psychology, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia;(2) University of Trier, Trier, Germany;(3) School of Psychology, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia |
| |
| Abstract: | Two different notions of justice might motivate people to demand punishment of an offender. The offense could be seen as lowering
the victim’s and community’s status/power position relative to the offender, requiring a degradation of the offender to restore
a moral balance (just desert). Or, the offense could be seen as questioning community values, requiring a reaffirmation of
those values through social consensus (value restoration). Two studies referring to tax evasion and social welfare fraud yielded
supportive evidence. Just desert was related to traditional punishment, especially when participants did not identify with
a relevant inclusive community (Australians). Value restoration was related to alternative (restorative) punishment, especially
when community values were regarded as diverse and requiring consensualization. It tended to be related to traditional punishment
when community values were regarded as clear and consensual.
|
| |
| Keywords: | retributive justice just desert punishment restorative justice social identity status power values |
| 本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录！ |
|
