Revenge: Is It Outdated?
But if one strike thee on thy right cheeke, turne to him also the other.
There is something deeply human about retribution. The need to regulate anti-social behaviour is rooted in our psyche as social animals. Retribution comes in many forms, be it a means for social bands to maintain their fabric and order, a way for parents to discipline their children, or as a fundamental tenet of religious rule – ‘an eye for an eye’ (Exodus 21:24). Even modern legal systems utilise retribution, or the fear of it, as a deterrent and consequence for misadventure. This paper will argue that much of current retributive practices are either overrated or outdated. Retributive justice, as a way to impose state-sanctioned punishment, has been utilised by the mainstream justice system for so long its use has gained widespread acceptance. Subsequently, its assumptions have been largely unchallenged.
Retributive justice operates on the premise that by punishing a person for their misadventure justice will be achieved, or in any case, one should be ‘punished even if punishing them would produce no other good’. [1] Recidivism rates have always been undesirably high under a retributive system. According to an April 2011 report, 43.3% of prisoners released in the United States in 2004 were reincarcerated within 3 years. [2] In Norway, the criminal justice system focuses more on restorative justice and rehabilitating prisoners rather than punishment. For those who are incarcerated, within 2 years of release there is just a 20% reimprisonment rate, considered one of the lowest in the world. [3]
Another criticism is that different stakeholders will often present conflicting views on how and which acts should warrant incarceration or punishment. In spite of retributive justice having been with us for centuries – millennia even – there does not exist a consensus scale of punishments for serious offenses. Assuming such a scale is capable of being developed, criminal transgressions and motivations nevertheless come in many different ways. Thus, penology should not come in a one-size-fits-all pattern.
Among the signs that current retributive justice practices are outdated are the advances reflected in science, technology, medicine and psychology. Electronic monitoring devices may be attached to offenders as they undergo rehabilitation, or in another case, offenders might benefit from counselling and psychological treatment rather than incarceration. There is thus less need for punitive and retributive measures as civilisations advance and our understanding of criminal behaviour heightens.
Prominent philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche grappled with the concept of retribution in his writing, On the Genealogy of Morals, published in 1887. Nietzsche questioned the equivalence between injury and pain. We find punishment (pain) is served on the offender after the fact – after the injury has occurred. Realistically, no amount of punishment is going to restore the injured party back to their original position; that is, the condition the party was in before the pain. However, an arbitrary period of incarceration might be imposed on the offender to ‘square the ledger’. By taking away the offender’s liberty, we remind him of the consequences of his transgressions. This is about retribution, not restoration.
So what does justice look like then? The answer is aiming for justice in a restorative, rather than retributive, framework. Restorative justice is concerned with repairing harm and implementing proactive strategies for parties to reconcile their differences. From the perspective of the injured party, restorative justice provides an opportunity to truly understand the why of a situation. This might include engaging in discourse with the offender in an attempt to understand their perspective. The goal is for the injured party to heal and reach a point of closure.
From an offender’s perspective, the consequences of their actions is more likely to become apparent when engaging directly with the injured party to understand their grievances and resonate with the pain they have caused. This increases accountability. A focus on restoration will enable the injured party to potentially obtain closure, and for the offending party to re-integrate into society. We already know reintegration is challenging for offenders and ostracisation only increases the likelihood of recidivism. There is something powerful about reflecting on our experiences together. As Nietzsche claims – punishment tames man but does not make him better.
In light of living in a time where alternative dispute resolution is gaining traction, we must ensure the vestiges of our archaic criminal justice system continue to be challenged. There is absolutely a place for isolating dangerous individuals from society in the name of protection. However, if we reason that forgiveness and rehabilitation are not only possible, but ideal, then we must move away from a system that espouses justice in form, but vengeance in substance. Instead, we must move toward a more restorative system of justice, a justice that achieves positive outcomes for all parties. Echoing the words of French Judge Baron de Montesquieu, ‘There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.’
[1] Alec Walen, ‘Retributive Justice’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.).
[2] Pew Trusts, State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America's Prisons,
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2011/04/12/state-of-recidivism-the-revolving-door-of-americas-prisons.
[3] William Lee Adams, ‘Sentenced to Serving the Good Life in Norway’ (12 July 2010) Time.