Recent from talks
Retributive justice
Knowledge base stats:
Talk channels stats:
Members stats:
Retributive justice
Retributive justice is a legal concept whereby the criminal offender receives punitive damages proportional or similar to the crime. As opposed to revenge, retribution—and thus retributive justice—is not personal, is directed only at wrongdoing, has inherent limits, involves no pleasure at the suffering of others (e.g., schadenfreude, sadism), and employs procedural standards. Retributive justice contrasts with other purposes of punishment such as deterrence (prevention of future crimes), exile (prevention of opportunity) and rehabilitation of the offender.
The concept is found in most world cultures and in many ancient texts. Classical texts advocating the retributive view include Cicero's De Legibus (1st century BC), Immanuel Kant's Science of Right (1790), and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's Elements of the Philosophy of Right (1821). The presence of retributive justice in ancient Jewish culture is shown by its mention in the law of Moses, which refers to the punishments of "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" as also attested in the Code of Hammurabi. Documents assert similar values in other cultures, though the judgment of whether a particular punishment is appropriately severe can vary greatly across cultures and individuals in accord with circumstance.
Some purposes of official retribution include:
In all ancient legal systems, retribution for wrongdoing took precedence over the enforcement of rights. A sense of natural law demanded that a criminal should be punished with similar loss and pain as they inflicted on their victim. Therefore, the concept of lex talionis (an eye for an eye) was common in ancient law. The Code of Hammurabi includes the oldest extent example of lex talionis, and the Hebrew Bible also includes a commandment: middah ke-neged middah (law of 'measure for measure'). The Roman lawyer and philosopher Cicero proposed "let the punishment fit the offence" (Latin: noxiae poena par esto), giving examples of violence being punished by death, fines being imposed on those convicted of greed etc.
In the late 18th century, the philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that retribution is the only legitimate form of punishment the court can prescribe:
Judicial punishment can never be used merely as a means to promote some other good for the criminal himself or for civil society, but instead it must in all cases be imposed on him only on the ground that he has committed a crime.
— Metaphysics of Morals § 49 E.
Kant regarded punishment as a matter of justice, which must be carried out by the state for the sake of the law, not for the sake of the criminal or the victim. He argues that if the guilty are not punished, justice is not done and if justice is not done, then the idea of law itself is undermined.
Hub AI
Retributive justice AI simulator
(@Retributive justice_simulator)
Retributive justice
Retributive justice is a legal concept whereby the criminal offender receives punitive damages proportional or similar to the crime. As opposed to revenge, retribution—and thus retributive justice—is not personal, is directed only at wrongdoing, has inherent limits, involves no pleasure at the suffering of others (e.g., schadenfreude, sadism), and employs procedural standards. Retributive justice contrasts with other purposes of punishment such as deterrence (prevention of future crimes), exile (prevention of opportunity) and rehabilitation of the offender.
The concept is found in most world cultures and in many ancient texts. Classical texts advocating the retributive view include Cicero's De Legibus (1st century BC), Immanuel Kant's Science of Right (1790), and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's Elements of the Philosophy of Right (1821). The presence of retributive justice in ancient Jewish culture is shown by its mention in the law of Moses, which refers to the punishments of "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" as also attested in the Code of Hammurabi. Documents assert similar values in other cultures, though the judgment of whether a particular punishment is appropriately severe can vary greatly across cultures and individuals in accord with circumstance.
Some purposes of official retribution include:
In all ancient legal systems, retribution for wrongdoing took precedence over the enforcement of rights. A sense of natural law demanded that a criminal should be punished with similar loss and pain as they inflicted on their victim. Therefore, the concept of lex talionis (an eye for an eye) was common in ancient law. The Code of Hammurabi includes the oldest extent example of lex talionis, and the Hebrew Bible also includes a commandment: middah ke-neged middah (law of 'measure for measure'). The Roman lawyer and philosopher Cicero proposed "let the punishment fit the offence" (Latin: noxiae poena par esto), giving examples of violence being punished by death, fines being imposed on those convicted of greed etc.
In the late 18th century, the philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that retribution is the only legitimate form of punishment the court can prescribe:
Judicial punishment can never be used merely as a means to promote some other good for the criminal himself or for civil society, but instead it must in all cases be imposed on him only on the ground that he has committed a crime.
— Metaphysics of Morals § 49 E.
Kant regarded punishment as a matter of justice, which must be carried out by the state for the sake of the law, not for the sake of the criminal or the victim. He argues that if the guilty are not punished, justice is not done and if justice is not done, then the idea of law itself is undermined.
Recent media