Hubbry Logo
Retributive justiceRetributive justiceMain
Open search
Retributive justice
Community hub
Retributive justice
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Retributive justice
Retributive justice
Retributive justice
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Criminology and penology
Theory
Types of crime
Methods
Penology
Crime prevention
Criminal justice
Schools
Subfields
Browse
Judicial remedies
Legal remedies (Damages)
Equitable remedies
Related issues

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.[1][2] 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),[3] and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's Elements of the Philosophy of Right (1821).[4] The presence of retributive justice in ancient Jewish culture is shown by its mention in the law of Moses,[5][6] 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.

Purposes

[edit]

Some purposes of official retribution include:[7]

  • To channel the retributive sentiments of the public into the political and legal systems. The intent is to deter people from resorting to lynchings, blood feuds, and other forms of vigilante self-help.
  • To promote social solidarity through participation in the act of punishing, under the theory that "the society that slays together stays together."
  • To prevent a situation in which a citizen who would have preferred to obey the law as part of his civic responsibility decides that he would be a fool to not violate it, when so many others are getting away with lawlessness that the point of his obedience is mostly defeated.
  • To punish an offender.
  • To compensate victims in proportion to the crime.

History

[edit]

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.[8]

In the late 18th century, the philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that retribution is the only legitimate form of punishment the court can prescribe:[9]

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.[10]

One of the reasons for the abandonment of retribution by many legal systems in the 20th century was the abandonment of the concept of personal autonomy, which had become discredited.[7] While retributive justice is usually considered as a cornerstone of criminal punishment, it has been shown that it also plays a role in private law.[11]

Principles

[edit]

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, retributive justice is committed to three principles:[12]

  • "Those who commit certain kinds of wrongful acts, paradigmatically serious crimes, morally deserve to suffer a proportionate punishment."
  • It is "intrinsically morally good—good without reference to any other goods that might arise—if some legitimate punisher gives [those who commit certain kinds of wrongful acts] the punishment they deserve."
  • "It is morally impermissible intentionally to punish the innocent or to inflict disproportionately large punishments on wrongdoers."

Proportionality

[edit]

Proportionality requires that the level of punishment be related to the severity of the offending behaviour. An accurate reading of the biblical phrase "an eye for an eye" in Exodus and Leviticus is said to be: "only one eye for one eye",[13] or "an eye in place of an eye." However, this does not mean that the punishment has to be equivalent to the crime. A retributive system must punish severe crimes more harshly than minor crimes, but retributivists differ about how harsh or soft the system should be overall. The crime's level of severity can be determined in multiple ways. Severity can be determined by the amount of harm, unfair advantage or the moral imbalance that the crime caused.

Traditionally, philosophers of punishment have contrasted retributivism with utilitarianism. For utilitarians, punishment is forward-looking, justified by a purported ability to achieve future social benefits, such as crime reduction. For retributionists, punishment is backward-looking, justified by the crime that has already been committed. Therefore, punishment is carried out to atone for the damage already done.[14]

Subtypes

[edit]

Retributive justice is of two distinct types. The classical definition embraces the idea that the amount of punishment must be proportionate to the amount of harm caused by the offence. A more recent version advocated by philosopher Michael Davis asserts that the amount of punishment must be proportionate to the amount of unfair advantage gained by the wrongdoer. Davis introduced this version of retributive justice in the early 1980s, at a time when retributive justice was resurging within the philosophy of law community, perhaps due to the failings[original research?] of reform theory in prior decades.[citation needed]

A retributive justice system's assessment of blameworthiness (or lack thereof) can either justify punishment or serve merely to limit the punishments society imposes for other reasons.[7]

Criticisms

[edit]

Many jurisdictions that adopt retributive justice, especially in the United States, use mandatory sentencing, where judges impose a penalty for a crime within the range set by the law. However, judges have limited discretion to consider mitigating factors, leading to lesser penalties under certain circumstances.[citation needed]

When the punishment involves a fine, the theory does not allow the financial position of an offender to be considered, leading to situations in which a poor individual and a millionaire could be forced to pay the same amount. Such a fine would be punitive for the poor offender while insignificant for the millionaire.[15] Instead of pure retribution, many jurisdictions use variants such as the European Union's emphasis on punitive equality, which base the amount of a fine not just on the offense but also on the offender's income, salary, and ability to pay. Consequently, in 2002, a senior Finnish executive at Nokia was given a fine of €116,000 (US$103,000) on a traffic ticket issued for driving 75 km/h (47 mph) in a 50 km/h (31 mph) zone,[16] based on his income of €14 million (US $12.5 million) per year. Similarly, a Finnish businessman was required to pay €54,000 based on his yearly income of €6.5 million, making the fine equally punitive as a typical €200 (US$246) fine for the same offense would have been had it been issued to a Finn earning an average salary.[17] The retributive theory's lack of consideration of the perpetrator's and victim's status has led many jurisdictions to move away from it in various ways, including punitive equality and taking into consideration the status and wealth, or lack of status and wealth, of an offender and their consequent ability to both pay fines and defend themselves effectively in court.

One critique of some concepts of just deserts is that they are primitive, emphasizing social harm rather than the character and culpability of offenders, e.g., California's 1976 statute calling for "terms proportionate to the seriousness of the offense with provision for uniformity in the sentences of offenders committing the same offense under similar circumstances." More generally, prioritizing justice for the public over crime control goals has come under criticism as attributable more to the relative ease of writing sentencing guidelines as crime tariffs (as opposed to describing the appropriate influence of situational and personal characteristics on punishment) than to any sound arguments about penological theory.[7]

Alternatives

[edit]

Traditional alternatives to retributive justice have been exile and shunning. In pre-modern societies such sentences were often the equivalent of the death penalty as individuals would find it impossible to survive without the support and protection of the society that they had wronged.[citation needed]

Modern alternatives to retributive measures include utilitarian justice, psychiatric imprisonment, restorative justice and transformative justice. A general overview of criminal justice puts each of these ideals in context.

One libertarian approach to this issue argues that full restitution (in the broad, rather than technical legal, sense) is compatible with both retributivism and a utilitarian degree of deterrence.[18]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Retributive justice

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Retributive justice is a normative theory of criminal that posits offenders deserve to suffer harm strictly proportional to the of their culpable , independent of any consequentialist aims such as deterring future crimes or rehabilitating the offender. This backward-looking approach emphasizes the intrinsic justice of retribution, where affirms the offender's agency in choosing to violate or legal norms and restores the equilibrium disrupted by the crime, as articulated in wherein the guilty possess a "right to " to uphold retributive . Unlike , which prioritizes repairing harm to victims and communities through , retributive justice focuses solely on the offender's , rejecting leniency or excess as violations of proportionality—punishing the innocent or over-punishing the guilty undermines the theory's core principle that "only the guilty may be punished, and they must be punished." Historically rooted in ancient codes like the Mosaic law's "" and developed through philosophers such as and G.W.F. Hegel, retributivism gained prominence in modern penal theory as a counter to utilitarian models dominant in the 19th and 20th centuries, which justified punishment primarily for its social utility. Key tenets include the negative retributivist limit—that permissible punishment cannot exceed what is deserved—and the positive variant, which mandates punishment as a to affirm order, though debates persist over whether desert requires precise commensurability between crime and penalty, especially in cases of incomplete evidence or varying societal harms. Proponents argue it provides a principled foundation for sentencing, avoiding the moral hazards of under-punishment that signals or over-punishment that mimics vengeance, yet critics from consequentialist perspectives contend it ignores empirical evidence on reduction, where alternatives like targeted deterrence may yield better public safety outcomes without relying on desert intuitions potentially skewed by cultural or cognitive biases. Despite its philosophical appeal in ensuring accountability, retributive justice faces practical challenges in application, such as calibrating proportionality across diverse offenses—from minor to heinous —amid evolving standards of and , leading to disparities in real-world systems where subjective judgments influence outcomes. Empirical studies on public attitudes reveal strong intuitive support for retributive proportionality, with individuals favoring punishments that match perceived moral over purely restorative measures, suggesting an innate human preference for desert-based that aligns with evolutionary accounts of reciprocity . Nonetheless, hybrid models incorporating retributive elements with evidence-based reforms have emerged to address these tensions, though purist retributivists maintain that diluting for pragmatic ends erodes the theory's commitment to causal , where wrongdoing inherently demands responsive suffering to vindicate .

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Core Tenets

Retributive justice constitutes a normative framework for emphasizing that offenders merit sanctions calibrated to the severity of their culpable wrongdoing, irrespective of future-oriented objectives like or societal rehabilitation. This approach justifies penal measures solely on the basis of moral desert, where the offender's voluntary violation of established norms incurs a corresponding to endure hardship as a direct of the committed. Unlike consequentialist theories, retributivism is inherently backward-looking, deriving legitimacy from the past act's intrinsic wrongness rather than anticipated benefits or harms. Central to retributivism is the tenet of proportionality, which mandates that align precisely with the offense's gravity—neither excessively severe nor unduly lenient—to uphold fairness and prevent arbitrary state power. Proportionality encompasses both ordinal ranking (comparative severity across crimes) and cardinal scaling (absolute fit between act and penalty), ensuring, for instance, that premeditated warrants harsher retribution than , as measured by factors like inflicted harm and perpetrator intent. This principle traces to classical formulations, such as Kant's against instrumentalizing persons, wherein punishment restores moral equilibrium without treating the offender as a mere means to extrinsic ends. Another foundational tenet is moral desert, positing that intentional wrongdoing generates an unqualified duty to punish, grounded in the offender's agency and for disrupting the social-moral order. Desert operates independently of empirical outcomes, rejecting excuses like low risk; instead, it affirms that culpability—assessed via (guilty mind) and (guilty act)—establishes a presumptive claim for retribution, thereby affirming and communal norms. Retributivists contend this fosters genuine , as unpunished desert erodes justice's integrity, though critics note challenges in quantifying desert amid subjective valuations of harm. Retributivism further incorporates constraints on application, such as excluding innocents and prohibiting vicarious or , to safeguard against overreach while insisting on the state's monopoly on legitimate retribution over private vengeance. These tenets collectively prioritize intrinsic over utilitarian calculus, maintaining that deserved suffering rectifies the offender's defiance of rational moral law.

Philosophical and Moral Basis

Retributive justice rests on the deontological principle that punishment is morally required because offenders deserve it as a direct consequence of their culpable wrongdoing, irrespective of any deterrent or rehabilitative effects. This "just deserts" foundation asserts that the intrinsic moral imbalance created by a —wherein the offender gains an unfair advantage or violates others' —necessitates a proportionate response to restore equilibrium, treating the offender as a accountable for their choices. Unlike consequentialist theories, retributivism derives its authority from the offender's blameworthiness, measured by factors such as , , and the harm inflicted, rather than predicted societal benefits. Immanuel Kant provided a cornerstone for this view in his Metaphysics of Morals (1797), arguing that punishment fulfills a by ensuring the wrongdoer receives exactly the harm they imposed, thereby upholding the moral law's universality and respecting human autonomy. For Kant, failing to punish equates to treating the criminal as a mere means, akin to the itself, while proportionate retribution reaffirms the offender's status as an end-in-itself who has forfeited certain protections through their deed. This retaliation principle—often summarized as ius talionis—demands equivalence, such as for , not as vengeance but as owed to the violated legal order. G.W.F. Hegel extended retributivism in his Philosophy of Right (1821), conceptualizing as the of the crime's : the offender's willful violation of abstract right asserts a false universality, which counters by reinstating the true rational order through the state's coercive recognition of the wrong. Hegel's framework emphasizes over mere suffering, where educates the offender by affirming their within ethical life, though it retains a retributive core by annulling the crime's disruption without regard for utility. Both Kantian and Hegelian strands underscore that desert-based is a , binding the state to act impartially, as evidenced in persistent public intuitions favoring severity matched to offense gravity over leniency driven by reformist goals.

Historical Development

Ancient and Pre-Modern Roots

The , promulgated circa 1754–1750 BCE by the Babylonian king , represents one of the earliest codified expressions of retributive justice, embodying the principle of lex talionis through provisions mandating punishments mirroring the offense, such as the of a hand for striking a free man or the loss of an eye for causing similar injury to another. These laws aimed to restore balance by equivalence, though application varied by , with slaves facing lighter penalties when victimized but harsher ones as perpetrators, reflecting a stratified system of accountability. The code's 282 provisions extended retribution to property crimes, family disputes, and commerce, underscoring punishment as a means to affirm the offender's desert for the harm inflicted. Hebrew biblical law further entrenched retributive principles, as articulated in Exodus 21:23–25, Leviticus 24:19–20, and Deuteronomy 19:21, which prescribed "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth" to enforce proportionality in penalties for personal injuries, thereby curbing cycles of excessive private vengeance in tribal societies. Courts typically assessed monetary compensation (kofer) rather than literal , prioritizing measured retribution to uphold communal order without amplifying feuds, a practice evidenced in rabbinic interpretations limiting talionic application to severe cases like . This framework influenced subsequent legal thought, emphasizing the offender's as the basis for fitting . In , retributive justice appeared in philosophical treatments of corrective or rectificatory justice, where , in (circa 350 BCE), defined it as an arithmetic mean restoring equality between parties through penalties proportional to the wrong, such as fines or reprisals matching the loss incurred. , in Laws (circa 360 BCE), advocated punishments calibrated to the crime's severity and the offender's , viewing retribution as a tool to affirm moral desert while integrating elements of moral correction, though subordinating pure vengeance to societal harmony. built on these ideas with the (451–450 BCE), which codified retaliatory sanctions like talio for bodily harms—e.g., limb for limb—to supplant aristocratic blood feuds with public adjudication, marking a shift toward state-enforced equivalence in penalties. Pre-modern European systems retained retributive cores amid feudal and ecclesiastical influences, as seen in medieval English assizes from the onward, where offenses like or warranted penalties or death scaled to the harm, aiming to exact and deter through visible proportionality. Practices such as wergild payments in (pre-1066) allowed commuted retribution for , but persistent mutilations and executions for felonies underscored the enduring emphasis on fitting the crime's gravity, often without modern rehabilitative intent. These roots persisted into the early modern era, informing traditions until Enlightenment reforms.

Enlightenment to Modern Era

The Enlightenment era marked a philosophical crystallization of retributive justice, emphasizing as a tied to desert rather than mere utility or vengeance. , in his (1797), articulated that the state's duty to punish stems from the offender's violation of the , requiring retribution strictly proportional to the crime's wrongness, such as ius talionis ("an eye for an eye") for intentional harms. rejected consequentialist justifications, insisting that failing to punish undermines the equality of rational beings under law, as the criminal cannot forfeit rights selectively. This deontological framework influenced penal thought by prioritizing culpability and moral desert over deterrence or . Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel extended retributivism in his Philosophy of Right (1821), viewing punishment as the negation of crime within the dialectical process of ethical life (Sittlichkeit). For Hegel, the offender, by committing a wrong, asserts a claim against the universal order, and punishment restores right by annulling this claim, thereby affirming the criminal's own freedom and rationality. Unlike Kant's absolute proportionality, Hegel's approach embedded retribution in social , yet both thinkers grounded it in the offender's , countering arbitrary or rehabilitative excesses. These ideas informed 19th-century reforms, such as codified penal laws in (e.g., France's 1810 Code pénal emphasizing graded penalties), which sought rational proportionality amid declining corporal punishments. In the 20th century, retributivism faced challenges from positivist and rehabilitative ideals, which dominated from the Progressive Era onward, promoting indeterminate sentencing and treatment over fixed deserts—evident in U.S. model penal codes and systems peaking mid-century. Critiques of rehabilitation's efficacy, including Robert Martinson's 1974 analysis showing limited success in reducing , spurred a resurgence of retributivist "just deserts" models by the 1970s. Thinkers like Andrew von Hirsch advocated proportionate penalties based on offense gravity and criminal history, influencing determinate sentencing guidelines, such as the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines (1987), which aimed to curb disparity while embedding desert principles. This shift reflected empirical recognition that unchecked discretion often yielded unjust outcomes, reaffirming retribution's role in limiting state power and ensuring public .

Contemporary Refinements

In the mid-, retributive justice experienced a significant revival amid widespread critique of indeterminate sentencing and rehabilitative ideals, which empirical data from the and early 1970s showed failed to reduce rates effectively, with studies indicating reoffense rates often exceeding 50% for parolees. Andrew von Hirsch's 1976 Doing Justice advanced a -based model, positing that penalties should be proportionate to the offense's harm and the offender's , thereby limiting judicial and prioritizing over predictive or utilitarian goals. This refinement emphasized "limiting retributivism," where retributive principles establish outer bounds for punishment severity—neither mandating exact equivalence nor permitting excesses—while allowing ancillary considerations like to influence outcomes within those limits. Philosophical developments in the late further refined retributivism's moral foundations. Michael S. Moore, in works such as Placing Blame (1997), defended a robust form of retributivism rooted in , arguing that culpable wrongdoing creates an intrinsic moral imbalance that rectifies by imposing suffering as deserved hard treatment, independent of consequentialist benefits. Moore contended this justifies as a categorical , countering utilitarian critiques by asserting that is a non-instrumental good, evidenced through intuitive judgments of proportionality in everyday . These arguments addressed earlier retributivist shortcomings by integrating deontological ethics with claims of objective moral facts, distinguishing positive retributivism (which requires within a range) from negative variants (which merely prohibits outside it). Into the , refinements have grappled with empirical challenges, including associations between strict retributivist policies and elevated incarceration rates—U.S. populations rose from about 500,000 in 1980 to over 2 million by 2008—prompting "modest retributivism" to incorporate parsimony principles that constrain punishment to the minimum necessary for satisfaction. Recent proposals, such as reintegrative retributivism outlined in 2025 scholarship, blend with empirical insights on offender , suggesting that proportionate sanctions can induce genuine and facilitate societal reintegration, thereby enhancing retributivism's practical viability without diluting its core punitive rationale. These adjustments respond to data showing that overly harsh penalties correlate with diminished rehabilitative effects and higher , advocating for calibrated application that preserves retributivism's emphasis on while mitigating systemic excesses.

Key Principles

Proportionality and Equivalence

In retributive justice, the principle of proportionality mandates that the severity of correspond to the moral gravity of the offense, ensuring offenders receive neither more nor less than they deserve based on their culpable wrongdoing. This cardinal proportionality establishes absolute thresholds for fitting penalties, while ordinal proportionality ranks punishments relative to seriousness, such as imposing harsher sanctions for aggravated assault than for petty theft. Retributivists argue this alignment upholds moral desert, where restores the equilibrium disrupted by the , independent of consequentialist goals like deterrence. Violations of proportionality, such as excessive penalties, undermine retributive legitimacy by imposing undeserved suffering, as articulated in analyses emphasizing 's intrinsic limits. Equivalence extends proportionality by requiring a substantive matching between the harm inflicted by the offender and the harm returned through punishment, often invoked through the ancient lex talionis doctrine of reciprocal retaliation. Codified in the Babylonian circa 1754–1750 BCE, this principle prescribed identical injuries for equivalent offenses, such as death for murder or mutilation for bodily harm, to enforce strict commensurability. Philosophers like refined equivalence in the 18th century, positing that punishment must equalize the offender's action by subjecting them to the same type of wrong they committed—e.g., thieves deprived of property, murderers of life—thus embodying the categorical imperative's demand for juridical equality. Kant viewed this as annulment of the crime's injustice, where the state's sovereign authority executes the penalty to prevent private vengeance. Modern retributive applications adapt equivalence beyond literal reciprocity, recognizing challenges in equating intangible harms like or emotional injury with tangible penalties. For instance, while lex talionis works for physical violence, non-violent crimes necessitate symbolic equivalents, such as fines mirroring economic loss or approximating lost liberty, calibrated via sentencing guidelines that anchor penalties to offense levels. Empirical scaling in U.S. federal guidelines, effective since 1987, employs a 43-level offense seriousness table to ensure ordinal equivalence, with adjustments for factors like victim vulnerability, though critics note persistent disparities in application. This framework prioritizes retributive over utilitarian excess, constraining penalties to avoid disproportionality, as excessive punishment fails to rectify the wrong proportionally.

Assessment of Culpability

In retributive justice, is assessed by evaluating the offender's moral blameworthiness, which determines the extent of deserved and ensures proportionality to the . This assessment presupposes that individuals possess the capacity for rational choice and , rendering them accountable for voluntary acts that violate communal norms. Moral arises from the offender's fault in causing or risking harm, distinct from mere outcomes or , as must reflect rather than consequentialist goals like deterrence. Central to this evaluation is the mental state, or , which grades degrees of blameworthiness. Purposeful or intentional conduct—where the offender acts with deliberate aim to produce harm—establishes the highest , justifying the severest penalties, as it demonstrates full moral awareness and volition. Knowing or reckless actions, involving conscious disregard of substantial risks, warrant intermediate sanctions, while —failure to perceive risks a would—may suffice for lesser offenses but rarely for grave harms, given its attenuated fault. These distinctions prevent over-punishment of inadvertent errors and align retribution with the principle that suffering must match the offender's voluntary contribution to injustice. Culpability further incorporates the interplay between mental fault and the offense's objective seriousness, measured by harm inflicted or risked. Aggravating factors, such as premeditation or exploitation of vulnerability, elevate by intensifying the offender's responsibility, whereas mitigating elements—like duress, provocation, or diminished capacity short of legal —reduce it without excusing the act entirely. Empirical studies of lay judgments confirm this framework, showing public support for penalties scaled to over uniform or outcome-based approaches, with participants prioritizing and choice in assigning desert even when informed of risks. Philosophers like argue that retributivism demands punishment calibrated precisely to culpability's extent, rejecting alternatives that dilute desert through forward-looking considerations, as only the offender's moral debt justifies state-inflicted harm. This approach critiques systems permitting plea bargains or resource constraints to erode deserved sanctions, advocating instead for legislative penalty scales that embed culpability assessments to uphold justice's intrinsic demands.

Constraints on Application

The application of retributive justice is fundamentally constrained by the requirement of , which demands that punishment be imposed only on those who bear for the offense through voluntary . This excludes individuals lacking the capacity for rational agency, such as those acquitted via the , where severe mental illness negates the ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of actions or conform to legal standards. Similarly, diminished capacity defenses reduce or eliminate when cognitive impairments impair foresight or volition, ensuring retribution targets intentional rather than mere harm causation. Proportionality serves as a cardinal limit, mandating that the severity of align with the combined of the harm inflicted and the offender's degree of blameworthiness, preventing both under- and over-punishment. Negative retributivism enforces this by prohibiting penalties exceeding deserved forfeiture, such as rejecting lex talionis-style equivalents (e.g., literal eye-for-an-eye) when they prove impractical or excessively harsh for non-lethal wrongs. In cases of juveniles, developmental immaturity—evidenced by incomplete maturation affecting impulse control and —imposes constraints by attenuating , often warranting mitigated retribution over adult-level sanctions to reflect reduced . Practical application further demands rigorous assessment of intent () and circumstances, incorporating mitigating factors like duress or necessity that undermine full responsibility, while challenges in cardinal measurement—such as aggregating harm across diverse offenses or accounting for without —necessitate ordinal ranking systems to approximate fairness without arbitrary excess. These constraints underscore retributivism's commitment to desert-based limits, rejecting utilitarian overrides that might inflate punishment beyond individual wrongdoing.

Practical Applications

In Sentencing and Penalties

Retributive justice in sentencing prioritizes penalties that correspond to the offender's moral desert, calibrated by the offense's gravity—evaluating the harm inflicted and the degree of —and the offender's criminal history, independent of predictive assessments like risk. This approach demands proportionality, where punishments neither exceed nor fall short of what requires, ensuring the state inflicts no more suffering than the wrong merits. Determinate sentencing schemes align with these tenets by setting narrow ranges derived from legislatively defined offense seriousness, allowing limited adjustments for specific aggravating or mitigating circumstances without undermining the core retributive aim of rectification. In the , the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 embeds retributive principles within federal sentencing, mandating that penalties "reflect the seriousness of the offense" and "provide just punishment," as outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A). The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines operationalize this through a grid system: offense levels (1-43) quantify crime severity based on statutory harm assessments, combined with criminal history categories (I-VI) to yield recommended imprisonment ranges, such as 262-327 months for a level 43 offense (e.g., first-degree with aggravating factors). Judges must consider these guidelines, though post-2005 Booker v. United States, they are advisory; retributive fidelity persists via appeals scrutiny for substantive reasonableness tied to desert. Practical examples include mandatory minimum sentences for severe crimes, like life without parole for aggravated murder in many jurisdictions, mirroring the offense's irreversible deprivation of life. Similarly, "three-strikes" laws in states like impose enhanced terms for recidivists, scaling punishment to cumulative while maintaining ordinal proportionality—harsher penalties for felonies than misdemeanors. These mechanisms reduce disparity by anchoring decisions in objective desert metrics, though debates arise over cardinal proportionality, such as whether a 10-year term for adequately balances harm against excessive severity.

In Severe Offenses and Capital Cases

Retributive justice in severe offenses emphasizes penalties scaled to the offense's harm and the offender's degree of , often resulting in lengthy or permanent incarceration to restore moral balance. For crimes like aggravated or serial sexual assault, sentencing frameworks prioritize the intrinsic desert of the act over extraneous factors such as potential rehabilitation. In the United States, federal and state guidelines assign base offense levels reflecting this proportionality; for instance, first-degree under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines typically mandates without release eligibility, as the irreversible deprivation of a victim's life demands an equivalently severe response. Similar principles apply in jurisdictions like the , where whole-life orders for "exceptionally serious" cases, such as the 2010 sentencing of Peter Sutcliffe's accomplices in related murders, embody retributive equivalence without parole prospects. In capital cases, retributive theory posits execution as the fitting penalty for premeditated by those fully culpable, aligning punishment with the crime's ultimate wrong of extinguishing human life. This view, rooted in the demand for equivalence, holds that lesser sanctions fail to annul the offender's unjust advantage over law-abiding society. The U.S. in (1976) upheld this application, requiring juries to weigh aggravating factors—like heinousness or multiple victims—against mitigators to ensure death sentences reflect proportionate desert, thereby reinstating after a 1972 moratorium. As of October 2024, 27 U.S. states retain statutes authorizing execution for , with over 2,400 inmates on death rows; alone accounted for 598 executions since 1976, typically for cases involving or child victims, where retributive proportionality justifies the sanction over . Application constraints arise from retributive commitments to accuracy and ; erroneous convictions undermine desert-based , prompting safeguards like bifurcated trials and appellate focused on evidence. Some retributivists, however, critique as insufficiently proportional or degrading, arguing life without better honors human agency by allowing potential remorse without state-inflicted death, though this remains a minority position amid predominant support for execution in paradigmatically acts. Internationally, retributive logic persists in nations like , which executed approximately 1,000 individuals in 2023 for severe crimes including corruption-linked murders, prioritizing societal moral equilibrium over utilitarian concerns.

Empirical Evidence

Public Intuitions and Support

Empirical studies consistently demonstrate that public intuitions favor retributive justice, with laypeople assigning punishments based on the principle of just —proportionality to the offense's and harm—rather than forward-looking goals like deterrence or rehabilitation alone. In vignette experiments, respondents across demographics recommend sanctions that scale with perceived , such as longer terms for intentional versus negligent acts, reflecting an innate preference for fitting retribution over utilitarian calculus. These judgments exhibit relative stability over time, supporting the viability of empirical as a basis for sentencing guidelines that align with community standards. Polls underscore this support, particularly for severe offenses where retributive equivalence is salient. , a 2021 Pew Research Center survey found 60% of adults favor the death penalty for convicted ers, with 27% strongly endorsing it as proportionate retribution, despite acknowledged concerns over systemic flaws in application. Similarly, Gallup polling around the same period reported 53% overall approval, with stronger backing among those viewing as warranting ultimate penalty equivalence. Public sentiment often critiques prevailing sentences as lenient, favoring adjustments to better match crime severity, as evidenced in cross-national attitudes where a majority perceive under-punishment for violent acts. Cross-cultural evidence reinforces the prevalence of these retributive intuitions. between Western (e.g., Canadian) and Eastern (e.g., Chinese) populations reveals no meaningful differences in endorsing punishments that correspond to offense gravity, positioning retribution as a core, transcultural norm amid varying restorative emphases. While offender or status can influence perceived intensity, the foundational commitment to culpability-based proportionality endures, informing theories that public buy-in bolsters systemic legitimacy when penalties reflect shared moral baselines.

Effects on Deterrence, Recidivism, and Crime Rates

Empirical research on the effects of retributive justice—characterized by punishments scaled to the moral of the offense rather than forward-looking goals—indicates limited influence on general deterrence. Meta-analyses of deterrence studies consistently find that increases in severity, a hallmark of retributive approaches, produce weak or negligible reductions in commission, with of apprehension exerting far greater influence. For instance, a comprehensive of over 700 studies concluded no significant general deterrent effect from longer sentences on . Retributive systems may enhance perceived moral credibility of the law, potentially aiding specific deterrence for punished individuals, but aggregate data show this does not substantially curb overall offending rates. Regarding , findings are mixed, with retributive sentencing's emphasis on proportionate incarceration often linked to outcomes driven by incapacitation rather than intrinsic reform. A 2021 of 116 studies reported that custodial sentences, typical in retributive frameworks, fail to prevent reoffending and may elevate it compared to non-custodial alternatives, attributing this to factors like prisonization and disrupted social ties. Conversely, some quasi-experimental evidence, such as a Dutch judge stringency study, suggests longer terms reduce post-release offenses, possibly via extended incapacitation or aging effects, though these gains diminish for non-violent offenders. A Canadian review of sanctions echoed that harsher punishments yield no deterrent and can produce counterproductive results, underscoring that retributive focus on desert does not inherently foster desistance without complementary interventions. On broader crime rates, retributive justice implementations have not demonstrated causal reductions attributable to retribution itself, as opposed to elements like policing . Longitudinal data reveal no decline in U.S. crime rates despite quadrupling incarceration since the 1980s—a period aligning with retributive "just deserts" sentencing reforms—implying limited aggregate impact. Cross-jurisdictional comparisons similarly show incarceration expansions under retributive paradigms correlate weakly with crime drops, with meta-analytic evidence prioritizing swiftness and certainty over severity for any deterrent contributions. Incapacitative effects temporarily lower rates by removing offenders, but retributivism's non-utilitarian core does not optimize this, and net societal costs often outweigh marginal benefits.

Controversies and Debates

Criticisms from Utilitarian and Rehabilitative Perspectives

Utilitarians contend that retributive justice errs by grounding in the moral desert of past offenses rather than in its forward-looking capacity to maximize overall welfare, such as through deterrence or . , a foundational utilitarian thinker, viewed as an inherent that inflicts unnecessary unless it yields net benefits by averting greater harms, dismissing retributive rationales that treat as intrinsically deserved without consequential justification. This perspective critiques retributivism for potentially endorsing disproportionate or inefficacious penalties, as proportionality to may not align with empirical outcomes like reduced rates; for instance, utilitarian analyses argue that resources devoted to retributive sanctions could be redirected toward preventive measures yielding higher . H.J. McCloskey further elucidates this divide, noting that while retributivists prioritize equivalence between crime and penalty regardless of effects, utilitarians assess 's validity solely by its tendency to promote security and happiness, rendering pure desert-based systems philosophically incomplete. Rehabilitative approaches criticize retributivism for its backward orientation, which fixates on censuring the offender's in isolation while overlooking opportunities to address causative factors like socioeconomic conditions or psychological deficits that could enable and societal reintegration. Proponents argue that retributive penalties, by emphasizing harshness scaled to offense severity, often exacerbate rather than mitigate it, as evidenced by comparisons showing rehabilitative interventions—such as cognitive-behavioral therapy programs—yielding reductions of 10-20% in meta-analyses, in contrast to purely punitive models. This critique posits that retributivism treats offenders as static wrongdoers deserving fixed retribution, neglecting their capacity for change and the broader social costs of non-reformative incarceration, which can perpetuate cycles of through stigmatization and skill erosion. Instead, rehabilitative prioritizes tailored interventions to restore offender functionality, viewing as a secondary tool only insofar as it facilitates personal transformation and victim-offender reconciliation, thereby challenging retributivism's intrinsic value on as morally myopic.

Defenses Emphasizing Intrinsic Value and Causal Realism

Defenders of retributive justice argue that derives its justification from the intrinsic moral desert of the offender, meaning that culpable wrongdoers merit suffering strictly proportional to the gravity of their offense, independent of any consequential benefits such as deterrence or social utility. This view holds that failing to impose deserved would violate a basic normative principle: the affirmation of moral balance, where the offender's deliberate impairment of others' necessitates an equivalent annulment of the offender's well-being to restore equilibrium. articulated this in his doctrine of right, asserting that the principle of equality requires that "whatever deserves must be punished," as rational agents who willfully contravene thereby authorize reciprocal against themselves, rendering unpunished guilt a contradiction in the moral order. This intrinsic value manifests not as sadistic pleasure in suffering but as the inherent rightness of aligning consequences with agency, ensuring that violations incur costs that reflect their wrongness. Michael S. Moore, in defending retributivism as the sole justifying aim of , contends that is a primitive, non-derivative good— satisfies the "fittingness" of response to , much as fits , without reduction to forward-looking goals; empirical contingencies like imperfect knowledge or enforcement costs may constrain application but do not negate the claim itself. Similarly, recent analyses emphasize that deserved sanctions generate intrinsic positive value by vindicating victims' and communal norms, countering the notion that retribution is merely expressive or symbolic without substantive weight. Incorporating causal realism, these defenses ground desert in the observable structure of human action, where agents' choices initiate causal chains of harm that demand accountability attuned to actual agency rather than speculative determinism or excusing narratives. Even under compatibilist frameworks acknowledging universal causation, retributivists like Derk Pereboom's critics argue that responsibility persists through the agent's reasons-responsive mechanisms, justifying punishment as a realistic response to behaviors embedded in causal histories without denying foresight or control. This approach rejects deterministic skepticism by emphasizing that moral culpability arises from the offender's integration into causal processes as a volitional participant, whose unmitigated choices warrant proportionate backlash to mirror the harm's etiology—thus, retribution causally reinforces the linkage between intent, act, and consequence in a manner fidelity to empirical agency requires, avoiding both libertarian illusions and consequentialist overreach.

Comparative Analysis

Versus Deterrent and Utilitarian Theories

Retributive justice holds that is morally required because offenders deserve it in proportion to the wrong they have committed, viewing the act of as an intrinsic good that restores moral balance rather than a means to external ends. This desert-based approach, rooted in deontological principles, prioritizes the offender's and agency, insisting that penalties must fit the crime's gravity irrespective of consequential outcomes. Deterrent theories, by contrast, justify punishment primarily through its prospective effects in discouraging future crimes, distinguishing between specific deterrence (reducing by the punished individual via fear of repetition) and general deterrence (influencing potential offenders society-wide through exemplary consequences). Proponents argue that penalties should be calibrated not just to but to their empirically verifiable capacity to alter behavior, such as through swift, certain, and severe sanctions that outweigh criminal gains, as evidenced in analyses of policies like three-strikes laws where perceived risk elevations correlated with localized crime drops between 1994 and 2000. Retributivists critique this forward-looking focus as potentially instrumentalizing human beings, permitting disproportionate or even pretextual punishments if they yield net preventive benefits, which undermines the against treating persons solely as means. Utilitarian theories extend deterrence by framing as one tool among many to maximize overall societal , assessing it against broader metrics like reduced , , and rehabilitation potential rather than alone. Jeremy Bentham's , for instance, posits that inflicts necessary pain only if it averts greater evils, allowing flexibility in severity based on —such as lighter sentences for minor offenses if deterrence holds without excess cost—prioritizing aggregate welfare over retributive proportionality. This consequentialist orientation invites retributivist objections that it risks eroding justice's foundational role, as calculations could theoretically endorse punishing the innocent (e.g., in false-flag scenarios) or withholding deserved penalties if deemed inefficient, though empirical constraints like public backlash often temper such extremes in practice. Retributivists maintain that provides an objective anchor absent in 's subjective aggregation, ensuring reflects causal responsibility for the inflicted rather than probabilistic forecasts. Philosophically, the divide pits retributivism's emphasis on commutative —balancing moral ledgers through equivalent suffering—against deterrence and utilitarianism's distributive focus on optimizing outcomes, where retributivists like argue that failing to punish proportionally equates to in the , while utilitarians like Bentham subordinate such intuitions to verifiable social gains. In application, hybrid systems often blend elements, but pure retributivism resists consequentialist overrides, contending that deterrence's efficacy, while sometimes observed (e.g., in certainty of apprehension driving compliance more than severity per 2010s meta-analyses), cannot supplant without moral arbitrariness.

Versus Restorative Justice Models

Retributive justice emphasizes punishment proportionate to the offense as a matter of moral desert, viewing the offender's as warranting or loss equivalent to the harm inflicted, independent of future consequences. In contrast, prioritizes repairing the harm caused to victims and communities through processes like offender-victim , apologies, and restitution, aiming to reintegrate the offender while fostering accountability via dialogue rather than state-imposed penalties. This divergence stems from foundational aims: retributive models are inherently backward-looking, responding to the wrongness of the act itself, whereas restorative approaches blend elements of addressing past harm with forward-oriented goals of and reduced future conflict. In application, retributive systems typically involve formal sanctions such as or fines calibrated to offense severity, as seen in standard criminal codes where sentences reflect graded . Restorative models, often used as alternatives or supplements in juvenile or minor offense cases, employ victim-offender conferences to negotiate outcomes like or compensation, with participation voluntary and focused on mutual understanding. Proponents of restorative justice argue it enhances victim satisfaction and offender empathy, citing empirical data from randomized trials showing reduced reoffending frequencies by approximately 14% compared to traditional processing. A 2023 meta-analysis of 37 studies confirmed small but significant reductions in general (odds ratio 0.84) for restorative programs, though no effect on violent reoffending, suggesting benefits primarily in lower-stakes contexts. From a retributive standpoint, restorative justice risks undermining proportionality by allowing offender remorse or victim to dilute deserved penalties, potentially eroding societal condemnation of serious s where restoration is infeasible, such as . Critics contend this approach conflates private reconciliation with public , failing to affirm the intrinsic wrongness of violations against communal norms and possibly signaling leniency that weakens general deterrence. Public preferences align more with retributive elements for severe offenses, with surveys indicating stronger support for punitive responses over restorative ones when crime increases, reflecting intuitive demands for equivalence over relational repair. While restorative outcomes show advantages in controlled studies, retributivists prioritize causal accountability—holding actors responsible for unchosen harms—over utilitarian metrics, arguing that empirical gains do not negate the deontological imperative of fitting retribution.

References

  1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-retributive/
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8417646/
  3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0065260107000044
  4. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-retributive/challenges.html
  5. https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1889&context=sjsj
  6. https://philosophynow.org/issues/163/On_Retributive_Punishment
  7. https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2739&context=honors-theses
  8. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1158&context=law_lawreview
  9. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2380419
  10. https://journals.publishing.umich.edu/jpe/article/id/3544/
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7170504/
  12. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/raju.12330
  13. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0731129X.2023.2184964
  14. https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1873&context=faculty-articles
  15. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1445&context=ilj
  16. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3751906
  17. https://philpapers.org/rec/VANKAH-4
  18. https://digitalcommons.oberlin.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1838&context=honors
  19. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/hegel-bulletin/article/is-hegel-a-retributivist/95899EF7BD0232310925954169C8A50A
  20. https://clcjbooks.rutgers.edu/books/retributivism/
  21. https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1235&context=hlr
  22. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/analysis-code-hammurabi
  23. https://www.historiascripta.org/ancient-civilizations/legacy-and-historical-significance-of-hammurabis-rule-1792-1750-bc/
  24. https://www.thetorah.com/article/an-eye-for-an-eye-the-biblical-principle-of-proportionality
  25. https://www.gotquestions.org/eye-for-an-eye.html
  26. https://iep.utm.edu/justwest/
  27. https://jle.aals.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2451&context=home
  28. https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/EJC-72be3706a
  29. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zqsqjsg/revision/5
  30. https://www.livescience.com/927-medieval-justice-medieval.html
  31. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z3jb3j6/revision/4
  32. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/decline-of-mercy-in-public-life/mercy-as-injustice-in-kant-and-the-retributivist-tradition/70851FBC528FA3C1C56C2C61D0CF0B6C
  33. https://www.planksip.org/the-function-of-punishment-in-justice-and-punishment-1760049761730/
  34. https://journals.library.wustl.edu/lawreview/article/6683/galley/23516/view/
  35. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3037&context=mlr
  36. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/renaissance-retribution-examination-doing-justice
  37. https://academic.oup.com/book/7062/chapter/151433406
  38. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2497&context=faculty_scholarship
  39. https://clok.uclan.ac.uk/3394/1/Moore%2527s%2520moral%2520facts%2520and%2520the%2520gap%2520in%2520the%2520retributive%2520theory%25202.pdf
  40. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2230.12940
  41. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11572-025-09762-x
  42. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3807&context=faculty_scholarship
  43. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/449204
  44. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/sound-retributive-argument-death-penalty
  45. https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/how-can-punishment-be-justified-on-kants-retributivism/
  46. https://web.uncg.edu/dcl/courses/viceCrime/m7/part3.asp
  47. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=dlj
  48. https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1235&context=hlr
  49. https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3299&context=sdlr
  50. https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=faculty_scholarship
  51. https://jaapl.org/content/41/4/496
  52. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-retributive/#Prop
  53. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10929
  54. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/retributive-justice-model-sentencing
  55. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/retributivism
  56. https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3090&context=flr
  57. https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-08/10-capital-punishment-proportionality.html
  58. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6075&context=jclc
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10538536/
  60. https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1412&context=hlr
  61. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1616&context=jcl
  62. https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/65/4/878/7921528
  63. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1148907
  64. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/02/most-americans-favor-the-death-penalty-despite-concerns-about-its-administration/
  65. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/policy/public-opinion-polls
  66. https://oxfordre.com/criminology/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-222
  67. https://migration.uwo.ca/collaborative_specialization/student_presentations/Bennet-AbuAyyash_presentation.pdf
  68. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0033294116679654
  69. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-22890-013
  70. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence
  71. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225622127_Is_Deterrence_Effective_Results_of_a_Meta-Analysis_of_Punishment
  72. https://www.antoniocasella.eu/dnlaw/Mammarella_2016.pdf
  73. https://www.vera.org/news/research-shows-that-long-prison-sentences-dont-actually-improve-safety
  74. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-023-09566-w
  75. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/pnshnt-rcdvsm/index-en.aspx
  76. https://nvcourts.gov/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/45426/Punishment_Handout_Nevada_Speciality._Court.pdf
  77. https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1877&context=student_scholarship
  78. https://justjournalism.org/page/deterrence-and-incapacitation-a-quick-review-of-the-research
  79. https://journals.uclpress.co.uk/jbs/article/id/218/print/
  80. https://aspjournals.org/Journals/index.php/ajcr/article/download/695/759/934
  81. https://www.unh.edu/inquiryjournal/blog/2020/04/can-utilitarianism-improve-us-criminal-justice-system-evaluation-punishment-utility-calculus
  82. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2024096
  83. https://su.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1934964/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  84. https://brill.com/view/journals/ijpt/15/3/article-p401_7.xml
  85. https://philarchive.org/archive/CARCAR-9
  86. https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&context=facpubs
  87. https://web.uncg.edu/dcl/courses/vicecrime/pdf/m7.pdf
  88. https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft4q2nb3dn&chunk.id=d0e2384&toc.id=&brand=ucpress
  89. https://www.questjournals.org/jrhss/papers/vol13-issue10/13100106.pdf
  90. https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/09627250508553613.pdf
  91. https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0028/223759/2001-Daly-Revisiting-the-relationship-pre-print.pdf
  92. https://ldemerslaw.com/restorative-justice-vs-retributive-justice-a-comparative-analysis/
  93. https://study.com/academy/lesson/retributive-justice-vs-restorative-justice.html
  94. https://restorativejustice.org.uk/resources/evidence-supporting-use-restorative-justice
  95. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17488958231215228
  96. https://kar.kent.ac.uk/107653
  97. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14616734.2025.2532068?src=exp-la
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.