Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Honor and Revenge: A Theory of PunishmentRetribution and Revenge

Honor and Revenge: A Theory of Punishment: Retribution and Revenge [It is almost universally accepted among retributivists that revenge and retributive punishment are fundamentally different, the first being immoral but the second moral. Robert Nozick’s influential argument presents numerous features on which they purportedly differ, including the idea that revenge is personal while retribution is impersonal, and that revenge aims at the suffering of the wrongdoer while retribution aims only at justice. However influential this argument, it can easily be seen to be flawed. Revenge and retribution are identical in their essential features: both involve the intention to inflict harm on a person in response to his prior wrongdoing. There is an important distinction between the two: revenge is a privately-administered system of punishment, whereas retribution involves a state-administered public system. This distinction is important, though it implies the essential continuity of the two practices, rather than their difference. Thus it will not do to insist that retribution is justified because it is different from revenge; we need an account that allows for the essential continuity of revenge and retribution.] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

Honor and Revenge: A Theory of PunishmentRetribution and Revenge

Download PDF
20 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/honor-and-revenge-a-theory-of-punishment-retribution-and-revenge-XP0RZlRBzx

References (14)

Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Copyright
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
ISBN
978-94-007-4844-6
Pages
93 –112
DOI
10.1007/978-94-007-4845-3_5
Publisher site
See Chapter on Publisher Site

Abstract

[It is almost universally accepted among retributivists that revenge and retributive punishment are fundamentally different, the first being immoral but the second moral. Robert Nozick’s influential argument presents numerous features on which they purportedly differ, including the idea that revenge is personal while retribution is impersonal, and that revenge aims at the suffering of the wrongdoer while retribution aims only at justice. However influential this argument, it can easily be seen to be flawed. Revenge and retribution are identical in their essential features: both involve the intention to inflict harm on a person in response to his prior wrongdoing. There is an important distinction between the two: revenge is a privately-administered system of punishment, whereas retribution involves a state-administered public system. This distinction is important, though it implies the essential continuity of the two practices, rather than their difference. Thus it will not do to insist that retribution is justified because it is different from revenge; we need an account that allows for the essential continuity of revenge and retribution.]

Published: Aug 1, 2012

Keywords: Criminal Justice System; Strict Liability; Private Enforcement; Emotional Tone; Moral Wrong

There are no references for this article.