Revenge,Retribution, and Values: Social Attitudes and Punitive Sentencing

This study examined the pattern of relations between vengeance attitudes, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), and social dominance orientation (SDO) using the structure of value types proposed by Schwartz (Adv Exp Soc Psychol 25:1–65, 1992). Relations between these variables and support for a variety of sentencing options, including capital punishment, were then investigated. One hundred and forty-eight students in Adelaide, South Australia, completed a Vengeance Scale (Stuckless and Goranson, J Soc Behav Pers 7:25–42, 1992), measures of RWA and SDO, the Schwartz Value Survey (1992), and a Sentencing Goals Scale. As predicted, vengeance attitudes and SDO were found to be positively related to the importance of power values and negatively related to the importance of universalism and benevolence values. Vengeance attitudes were negatively related to rehabilitation and positively related to support for retribution and incapacitation sentencing goals, while RWA was positively related to the endorsement of deterrence and incapacitation as sentencing goals. Regression analyses indicated that only RWA and vengeance attitudes were unique predictors of death penalty support. Results provide support for the suggestion that vengeance is closely associated with our notion of retributive justice.     

Retributive and Restorative Justice

The emergence of restorative justice as an alternative model to Western, court-based criminal justice may have important implications for the psychology of justice. It is proposed that two different notions of justice affect responses to rule-breaking: restorative and retributive justice. Retributive justice essentially refers to the repair of justice through unilateral imposition of punishment, whereas restorative justice means the repair of justice through reaffirming a shared value-consensus in a bilateral process. Among the symbolic implications of transgressions, concerns about status and power are primarily related to retributive justice and concerns about shared values are primarily related to restorative justice. At the core of these processes, however, lies the parties’ construal of their identity relation, specifically whether or not respondents perceive to share an identity with the offender. The specific case of intergroup transgressions is discussed, as are implications for future research on restoring a sense of justice after rule-breaking.     

Do Retributive and Restorative Justice Processes Address Different Symbolic Concerns?

In support of a unitary conceptualization of retributive justice (justice through the imposition of punishment) and restorative justice (justice through dialogue aimed at consensus), three studies using hypothetical and recalled experiences of victimization found that people’s endorsement of, and satisfaction with, either justice notion depends on the symbolic meaning of the transgression. In Study 1, perceiving the transgression as a status/power violation was uniquely related to the endorsement of retributive justice, whereas perceiving it as a violation of shared values was uniquely related to restorative justice. In Study 2, motivation to restore status/power was related to retributive responses, whereas motivation to restore value consensus with the offender was uniquely related to restorative responses. In Study 3, a scenario experiment, respondents called for greater additional sanction when the applied justice process (retributive vs. restorative) did not fit the salient meaning of the transgressions compared to when it did (status/power vs. values).     

Welfare state, unemployment, and social justice: Judgments on the rights and obligations of the unemployed

This article reports judgments on the rights and obligations of the unemployed in The Netherlands. A large majority of the Dutch population is shown to support (i) the unemployed’s right to social security as well as their obligation to work, (ii) the principle that declining a job offering should be punished, and (iii) harsh sanctions in some specific cases of job refusal. An emphasis on the obligation to work results from conservative attitudes regarding both distributive justice (economic conservatism) and retributive justice (cultural conservatism). Furthermore, conservative attitudes regarding distributive justice derive from a privileged economic position (especially high income and infrequent experience of unemployment), whereas conservative attitudes regarding retributive justice result from a restricted cultural position (low level of education, technical rather than cultural type of education, and limited involvement in arts and culture).     

Punishment and Beyond: Achieving Justice Through the Satisfaction of Multiple Goals

We investigated the hypothesis that people's need for punishment does not preclude a desire for restorative sanctions that address the repairing of the harm to victims and communities caused by wrongdoing. Study 1 showed that although people felt it was important to punish the offender to achieve justice, they viewed additional justice goals as equally necessary. Study 2 revealed that people viewed sanctions as differentially able to fulfill various justice goals. Study 3 showed that the target on which respondents focused—the offender, victim, or community—determined which sanctions they selected to achieve justice; and that people did tend, by default, to focus on punishing the offender when responding to crime. These findings, taken together, suggest that people view the satisfaction of multiple justice goals as an appropriate and just response to wrongdoing, which allows for a possible reconciliation between the "conflicting" goals of restorative and retributive justice.     

Prelapsarian State: Forgiveness and Reconciliation in Transitional Justice

Since South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), 'reconciliation' is now an authoritative discourse governing political transition. Reconciliation governs the 'moral reordering' of national communities in the wake of conflict and transition to more democratic regimes by enquiring into, and attempting to address, past gross violations of human rights perpetrated, in the main, against civilian populations by the state and its agents. Reconciliation eschews retributive justice in favour of 'restorative' modes of 'dealing with the past', and has come, broadly, to be institutionalised by the truth commission. South Africa's TRC animated theological discourses of forgiveness and Christian reconciliation in order to legitimise and endow with moral resonance the project of transitional justice. This article enquires into the political effects of such an animation, and investigates the performance of forgiveness and reconciliation as metaphor and narrative.     

From the Inside/Out: Greene County Jail Inmates on Restorative ReEntry

The application of criminal justice sanctions is often misguided by a failure to recognize the need for a comprehensive approach in the transformation of offenders into law-abiding citizens. Restorative justice is a growing movement within criminal justice that recognizes the disconnect between offender rehabilitative measures and the social dynamics within which offender reentry takes place. By using restorative approaches to justice, what one hopes of these alternative processes is that the offenders become reconnected to the community and its values, something rarely seen in retributive models in which punishment is imposed and offenders can often experience further alienation from society. In this study, the authors wish to examine factors that contribute to failed prisoner reentry and reintegration and explore how restorative reintegration processes can address these factors as well as the needs, attitudes, and perceptions that help construct and maintain many of the obstacles and barriers returning inmates face when attempting to reintegrate into society.     

Drugpeace

A society’s conceptualization of “human nature” determines both how its people behave and their perceptions about justice. This paper contrasts societies that see humans as naturally competitive and selfish and requiring behavioral training (Skinnerian approaches to social control) with societies that see humans as naturally pro‐social and cooperative, striving to contribute (the premise of the prophets of major religions). Whereas the former rely mainly on rewards and punishments, and utilize retributive forms of justice, the latter rely more on apology, forgiveness, and restitution, with restoration of harmony as the goal of justice. The paper evaluates these two approaches in light of an image of human nature (recently developed by the author) that identifies three evolutionarily selected psychological needs that we all share: for acceptance, autonomy, and meaning. When any are denied, we tend to respond in anti‐social ways. Societies where that happens – particularly punitive authoritarian hierarchies – serve human nature less well, and are inherently unstable. Smaller, more egalitarian communities tend to evolve dialogic processes for resolving social rupture, a psychologically preferable process to coercion and shame.     

What restorative justice might learn from administrative theory

Two administrative ideal‐types related to competing forms of justice: retributive and restorative include ontological and epistemological foundations and associated organizational theory. The alternate understandings are coherently linked with the principles of justice informing retributive and restorative practices. Retributive justice is linked to formal organization based on instrumental rationality and individualist ontology, while restorative justice is linked to substantive organization based on ethical reasoning and relational ontology. Once constructed, ideal‐types can be used both to assess actual conditions on key characteristics as well as to make recommendations for organizational design. Therefore, conclusions are drawn about the importance of matching context to purpose, pointing toward further empirical research that will inform system design for restorative justice practices.     

Speaking about sexual abuse in British South Asian communities: offenders,victims and the challenges of shame and reintegration

Abstract

Cultural dynamics have a significant impact on how sexual matters, including sexual abuse, are discussed in British South Asian communities. The ways in which these communities talk about sexual violence often reinforce patriarchal norms and values, especially those concerned with honour and shame. As a result, victims are either silenced or the blame for the sexual violence they have suffered is laid at their own feet. Addressing the fact that these problems are rooted in patriarchal norms and values is key to understanding how to tackle sexual offending effectively in such communities. Both retributive and restorative justice are necessary in responding to sex crimes; retributive approaches help to recognise victims’ suffering, while restorative approaches offer promising avenues for encouraging victims and offenders alike to speak about their experiences. Both approaches are essential components to reintegrating victims and offenders into their communities.     

Should We Aim for a Unified and Coherent Theory of Punishment?

Thom Brooks criticizes utilitarian and retributive theories of punishment but argues that utilitarian and retributive goals can be incorporated into a coherent and unified theory of punitive restoration, according to which punishment is a means of reintegrating criminals into society and restoring rights. I point to some difficulties with Brooks’ criticisms of retributive and utilitarian theories, and argue that his theory of punitive restoration is not unified or coherent. I argue further that a theory attempting to capture the complex set of rules and behaviors that constitute the practice of legal punishment cannot persuasively be unified and coherent: legitimate features of the practice advance goals and promote values that in some cases conflict.     

Retribution or restoration? Anglo–Australian's views towards domestic violence involving Muslim and Anglo–Australian victims and offenders

Abstract

The current study explored how gender, group membership and different emotional reactions to the crime of domestic violence predict attitudes and endorsement of restorative or retributive justice practices. The experiment consisted of a 2 (victim group membership: Muslim- or Anglo–Australian)×2 (offender group membership: Muslim- or Anglo–Australian)×2 (Sex of participant) between-participants factorial design. Anglo–Australian participants (43 men; 50 women) were randomly assigned to one of the four manipulated conditions, and completed an online questionnaire that involved viewing a short video clip of a woman describing her experience as a domestic violence victim. Results revealed strong preferences for restorative justice in dealing with domestic violence, with women supporting this practice more than men. The crime was perceived as most severe and retribution was endorsed most strongly when the victim was Anglo–Australian (i.e. an in-group member). Intra-group violence was also perceived to be a greater breach of shared Australian values than inter-group (i.e. cross-cultural) domestic violence. Emotional reactions further predicted participants' responses, with hatred predicting stronger support of retributive ideals and sympathy for the victim predicting greater endorsement of restoration.     

Of Normal Human Sympathies and Clear Consciences: Comments on Hyman Gross’s <Emphasis Type="Italic">Crime and Punishment: A Concise Moral Critique</Emphasis>

Contemporary criminal justice systems are extraordinarily unfair. Focusing on Hyman Gross’s Crimes and Punishment: A Concise Moral Critique, however, I identify ways in which scholarly criticisms of these criminal justice systems tend to miss their target. In particular, I argue against the assumption that in order to criticize these criminal justice systems we need to cast doubt on the very practice of blaming people and on the notion of desert, or that we need to reject wholesale retributive rationales for punishment. Quite the contrary: an important reason why contemporary criminal justice systems are unfair is that they punish many people undeservedly.     

The repentant defendant and the potential of international criminal justice

ABSTRACT

Repentant defendants are a more common feature of the international criminal trial than commonly thought, and offer interesting opportunities to conceptualize the possibility of restorative justice within what is otherwise a conventionally retributive framework. Repentance may arise at different stages of the trial and is an inherent part of the assessment at the plea bargain and sentencing stages. It must be understood as a particular performance from the accused, one that individualizes guilt and performs the sort of moral agency on which international criminal law is otherwise premised. Its force lies potentially in its power to break down some of the constitutive dichotomies of international criminal justice, including those between perpetrator/victim, international/domestic, and retributive/restorative justice. One needs to account, however, for the potential ambiguity of repentance and the fact that it may be subtly exonerating, as well as the fact that international criminal tribunals have reasons to encourage it that have nothing to do with restorative justice. Only if the sincerity of repentance can be ascertained and if it can be addressed to victims may the restorative potential of international criminal justice be realized.     

Rethinking the restorative–retributive dichotomy: is reconciliation possible?

While the use of restorative justice within Western criminal justice systems continues to grow, its philosophical foundations remain uncertain. This inconclusiveness impacts directly upon the theoretical discussion of restorative justice and its relationship with existing paradigms of punishment, precipitating debate regarding its ability to integrate within justice systems governed by retributive paradigms. Specifically, this ambiguity of definition renders debate regarding the extent to which restorative justice philosophy exists as an alternative punishment or an alternative to punishment, and its existence as complementary or axiomatic to retributive justice unresolved. The philosophy of restorative justice, identifying its central features and addressing those previous attempts of contrasting restorative justice with the prevailing paradigm of retribution is explored here. However, it is suggested that aspirations of reconciling restorative justice philosophy with the retributive paradigm will be ultimately unsuccessful, due to the persistent latent ambiguity regarding the central foundation upon which restorative justice philosophy is built. Such concerns are also present when seeking to affirm the continued opposition of retributive and restorative justice.     

Restorative Justice: The Challenge of Sexual and Racial Violence

The paper reviews the theory and policy proposals of recent formulations of abolitionism and restorative justice. Challenges are posed to some of the assumptions of abolitionism by considering its applicability to acts of violence against women, children, and minority ethnic citizens. In particular, the assumptions that dangerous offenders are few, and that the 'meaning' of a harmful act is negotiable between perpetrators and victims, are called into question. The symbolic function of criminalization and penalization is discussed. The paper considers whether the strategies suggested by recent proponents of forms of abolitionism and restorative justice can satisfy doubts about the adequacy of earlier abolitionist formulations in relation to both the symbolic and instrumental functions presently served by criminal law.Whilst calls for further criminalization and penalization of racial, sexual, and domestic violence are understandable, the abolitionist case that retributive justice is more likely to increase rather than reduce such violence, and to leave victims unsatisfied, is defended.     

Revisionism and Desert

Revisionists claim that the retributive intuitions informing our responsibility-attributing practices are unwarranted under determinism, not only because they are false, but because if we are all “victims of causal luck”, it is unfair to treat one another as if we are deserving of moral and legal sanctions. One (moderate) revisionist strategy recommends a deflationary concept of moral responsibility, and that we justify punishment in consequentialist rather than retributive terms. Another (strong) revisionist strategy recommends that we eliminate all concepts of guilt, blame and punishment, and treat dangerous criminals as we treat people with contagious diseases. I argue against both strong and moderate revisionism that (1) it is not unfair to hold persons desert-entailingly responsible (in a weaker sense of ‘desert’) insofar as they take an interest in being treated as appraisable, and (2) that it is unfair to persons not to treat them as desert-entailingly responsible (in this weaker sense) contrary to their interests in being treated as such. The interest-based argument, I conclude, give us a justification for communicating retributive attitudes, but may still require a weak revision of our retributive practices, in the direction of a communicative theory of punishment.     

Attitudes Toward a Military Enforcement of Human Rights

In recent years, Western countries and NATO have repeatedly intervened in international conflicts using military means (e.g., Kosovo, Macedonia, and Afghanistan). The countries involved in these military operations have stated that these interventions did not serve strategic goals; instead, their prime purpose was to enforce human rights. Against this background the present paper aims to answer two main questions: First, how can attitudes toward such military interventions be measured? Second, how are these attitudes related to prosocial and antisocial personality dispositions? Two studies were conducted to address these questions. A first study with 275 university students from Germany enabled us to develop a short and reliable scale to measure attitudes toward the military enforcement of human right. A second study (N = 190) revealed that authoritarianism and the willingness to aggressively sanction the antisocial behavior of others were positively related to this attitude, while no significant relationship with prosocial dispositions emerged. Furthermore, it could be shown that a high concern for human rights only then was connected to a positive attitude toward their military enforcement if persons indicated to handle their daily conflicts in an aggressive manner.

     

恢复性司法的价值与理念——报应性司法和恢复性司法比较研究

犯罪包含着犯罪人与受害方，犯罪人与社会及其国家之间的衔突。报应性司法采用形而上的哲学方法分析犯罪原因，认为犯罪是犯罪人自由选择的结果，犯罪所侵害的主要是国家的统治秩序，因此，在“以怨报怨”观念支配下，主张犯罪人承担刑罚这样的抽象责任。恢复性司法以实证的方法研究犯罪，认为犯罪是社区关系失调的产物，犯罪侵害的不仅是国家利益，还包括被害人利益和社区利益，因此，在“以直报怨”观念支配下，主张犯罪人要面对受害方承担道歉、赔偿等具体责任。     

Three faces of justice: Competing ethical paradigms in forensic psychiatry

Respect for justice has traditionally been an essential principle of health care ethics. However, many bioethical accounts of justice focus only on distributive justice, and how resources for health care should be allocated. In this article, I will argue that the practice of forensic mental health care requires clinicians to engage with justice in three additional and different ways: justice as liberty and fairness; retributive justice and protection of the vulnerable; and justice as the promotion of virtue. I will argue that British forensic psychiatry favours retributive and protective justice; in contrast to a libertarian approach to forensic practice in the United States. I discuss how respect for justice as support for virtue complements therapeutic work with offenders, which aims at the development of pro‐social character. I will conclude that without respect for justice as virtue, there is a danger that clinical forensic psychiatry risks doing harm to patients and bringing the profession into disrepute.