Retribution Meaning in Criminal Law


Punishment was also often associated with revenge or the desire for revenge. But the two concepts should not be confused. Robert Nozick has made five distinctions between the two, including that revenge is personal, but retaliation is not, and that this section begins with a brief note on the etymological origins of “retaliation.” However, most retaliation theorists have chosen the second of the meanings given below: “positive retaliation theorist”. Some argue for a limited variant of retaliation: the “negative retaliation factor” for substantive reasons. Other limited applications of the idea are taken up by “limiting retributivism” and “communicative reprisals”. After examining these limited versions of retributivism, I turn to three ideas that are sometimes confused with retributivism: lex talionis, retrospective criminal justice, and sublimated vengeance. In the context of retaliatory justice, it is also important that the perpetrators are actually guilty of the crime for which punishment was imposed. The true doctrine of deterrence, according to Jeremy Bentham`s utilitarian philosophy, allows innocent individuals to be punished if it fulfills a valuable social function (for example, creating and maintaining an image that crimes are detected and punished so that others are deterred from committing crimes). This idea is repugnant to retaliators who believe that punishments should only be imposed on those who have broken the law. The value of reprisals cannot be diminished by using them to compensate for shortcomings in the justice system.

“The court`s decision is consistent with the justifications for the death penalty, retaliation and deterrence, see, for example, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.P. 153. Among the factors determining whether the punishment is served, the Court must consider whether the death penalty compensates for the injustice to the victim in cases of non-homicide. (Quote omitted.) It is by no means clear that the pain of the victim of child rape will be reduced if the law permits the death of the perpetrator, as capital cases require long-term engagement of prosecution witnesses. Society`s desire to cause death for child rape by recruiting the child victim over the years to help him or her seek the death penalty obliges the child who is not of age to make that choice. Second, the punisher must perform severe treatment intentionally, not as an accident or not as a side effect of pursuing another goal. For example, while the detention of a criminal often has predictable adverse effects on the criminal`s family, retaliation would say that such harm does not constitute punishment unless intentionally inflicted as part of the punishment for the crime. One of the concerns about this type of view is that it could punish justice for self-defense. Social contract theorists can remedy this by pointing out that people not only delegate their right to punishment, but transfer it, retaining only a residual right to punish in cases of minor punishments, as they would be distributed outside the criminal justice system, or when the state fails or is incapable. However, communitarians like Antony Duff (2011:6) reject even a stunted right to vigilant justice.

Duff sees the state, which speaks on behalf of the entire community, as the only correct punisher, at least as far as crime is concerned (For an even stronger position in this direction, see Hegel 1821: §102). The comments and ideas launched and transmitted by young people are so nonchalant without understanding. Its true meaning is that, if no judgment has been made about you, it may sound encouraging, but don`t believe the hype. What you circulate while you show and tell is like holding a shiny armed silencer with safety off. The possibility of it starting is likely, and only then will you understand its true definition, as some of us have been measured by it. Not proven, only judged. Retribution is a concept that can have several meanings. In the simplest case, it is a sentence imposed for a crime in order to provide compensation to the victim and at the same time to punish the offender.

It can also potentially send a warning to people who are considering similar crimes and serve as a deterrent for future criminal activity by alerting members of society that they can be punished if they commit crimes. Although the state normally has the exclusive right to punish criminal wrongdoing, the question arises as to whether it can punish if it maintains or fails to remedy important social injustices (from distributive injustice to the denial of civil and political rights to socially deprived groups). (For a literature review, see Ewing 2018). Modern alternatives to retaliation include psychiatric incarceration, restorative justice, and transformative justice. A general overview of criminal justice puts each of these ideals in context. Middle English retribucioun, from Anglo-French, from late Latin retribution-, retributio, from Latin retribuere to pay, from re- + tribuere to pay â more at tribute The concept of responding to crime with retribution is ancient, and many primitive human societies have left behind documentation of the types of activities they classified as crimes and how they were punished. One aspect of punishment that was historically common was that authorities felt it had to be equivalent to a crime in some way. The saying “an eye for an eye” recorded in the Bible reflects this widespread belief. Over time, attitudes toward the judiciary changed to find sentences that were not necessarily as brutal as the crime in question, but had real consequences for the criminal acts.

Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article on reprisals The main costs of setting up criminal sanction institutions are: Retribution . comes from Latin. retribuere [which] is composed of the prefix re-, “in return”, and tribuere, literally “divide between tribes”. The punishment is based on the concept of lex talionis – the law of punishment. At its heart is the principle of equal and direct punishment, as expressed in Exodus 21:24 as “an eye for an eye.” Destroying the eye of a person of equal social rank meant that his own eye was annihilated. Some penalties for the culpable conduct of individuals were specifically related to prohibited acts. Branders who used their skills to remove slave tracks from runaway slaves, for example, had their hands amputated. An example of economic retaliation would be a court order granted to a white-collar criminal who stole money from his employer. Sending this convict to prison for a crime that deprived his victims of economic opportunities is not a good example of punishment that fits perfectly with the crime. If the convicted person is not allowed to work and make amends, the victims are not served by the judiciary. Indeed, a long period of imprisonment can result in high costs for taxpayers, who would also be denied economic opportunities.

Retributive justice considers it unfair to punish a wrongdoer more than he deserves, when what he deserves must be somehow proportional to the gravity of his crime.