Treating normal humans as merely more or less dangerous animals, whose behavior can hopefully be modified with threats and rewards and, failing that, who should be more or less fully incapacitated, is to over-extend the medical model. This is not to say that retributivists could not come up with an adequate response to Kolber, but they have work to do.
Wrongdoing, on this view, is merely a necessary condition for punishment. It would depend on a jurisdiction choosing certain anchor points within the acceptable ranges, and thus would apply only within that jurisdiction. The point of saying this is not to suggest, in the spirit of Hart Tortfeasors are generally treated not so much as wrongdoers as harm causers, who simply have a duty to make their victims whole.
This good has to be weighed against other possible goods to decide what it would be best to do. I wish to strike at those Phaeacians, at their splendid ship, as it sails back home, after its trip across the misty seas, so they will stop and never more provide an escort carrying human beings.
But it is very hard to explain the intuition that this practice is morally required in any way other than by recognizing that harsh treatment inflicted in connection with a crime is relevant to the size of the punishment, even if it wasn't intended as punishment at the time it was inflicted.
Third, the hardship or loss must be imposed in response to what is believed to be a wrongful act or omission. But retributive justice cannot be reduced to a measure of proportionality Moore Unless there is a danger that people will believe he is right, it is not clear why there is a pressing need to correct him.
And if called for as a matter of fairness, it is unclear why fairness does not require the other accommodations that Kolber notes and that nonetheless seem counter-intuitive.
More problematically yet, it seems to be fundamentally missing the point to say that the crime of, for example, murder is, at bottom, free riding rather than unjustly killing another.
It is harder still if culpability for what criminal lawyers call an element of the wrong or crime is completely lacking—making the wrong or crime a matter of strict liability.
Illiberal persons and groups may also make a distinction between wrongs that call for punishment and those that do not, but they will not draw the distinction in the same way that liberals would.
But it is a deontological point that an avenue of justification for harsh treatment is opened up if one believes that the person is guilty and therefore forfeits his right not to be so treated.
One might start, as social contract writers like Hobbes and Locke do, with the view that in the state of nature, the victim has the right to punish, and that the reasons for creating a state include reasons for potential victims to transfer that right to the state Hobbes But how do we measure the degree of shirking.
The positive desert claim holds that wrongdoers morally deserve punishment for their wrongful acts. But the view that it wrongs victims not to punish wrongdoers confuses vengeance, which is victim-centered, with retributivism, which is agent-centered: Third, if a desert agent is optional, then Dolinko's question about how punishers get from desert to a right to punish re-emerges, for then it looks like desert must concern good outcomes, not rights— see section 4.
Michael McKenna's entry in this Encyclopedia surveys a range of possible responses to this argument. Putting the point more generally, desert by itself does not justify the violation of rights. Homer shows very clearly the significant modification between justice and revenge.
For example, if you are involved in a car accident, and you are injured to some degree, justice will be served once the court of law implements a ruling against the other person, or party, who caused the accident.
Robert Nozick drew five distinctions between the two, including that revenge is personal but retribution is not, and that [r]evenge involves a particular emotional tone, pleasure in the suffering of another, while retribution either need involve no emotional tone, or involves another one, namely, pleasure at justice being done.
In addition, this view seems to imply that one who entered a secure society from some sort of failed state, and who has not yet benefited from the secure state, cannot be punished if he commits violent criminal acts in the secure state.
Then it seems that the only advantage he has is being able to express his anger violently.
It is hard to see why a desert theorist could not take the same position. Earth shaker Poseidon, distraught by the betrayal of the Phaeacians, asked Zeus to take revenge on the Phaeacians. The desert of the wrongdoer provides neither a sufficient condition for nor even a positive reason to punish see also Mabbott ; Quinton It is a conceptual, not a deontological, point that one cannot punish another whom one believes to be innocent section 2.
Justice vs. Revenge essays Justice is a way of punishing people when they commit a crime. Those who break a law or rule that has been put in place deserve to be punished humanely.
Justice is usually fair, but on occasion it can be too light on those who commit crimes such as murder or theft. Justice vs. Revenge in The CrucibleIn Arthur Millers The Crucible, the theme of justice vs. retribution and revenge is widely shown and used to increase the conflict in the play.
This conflict proves to be allegorical by having not only a surface level, but also an abstract level underlying the.
- Justice is part of revenge; as also for revenge is part of justice. “Justice” comes from a Latin word that means “straight, fair, equal”, it’s the quality of being righteous and loyal towards one’s state, although serves the interests of the stronger (Hourani, ), while revenge is the act of taking retaliation for injuries or.
Revenge, retribution, and even punishment, is never doing justice. But how hard it is to convince any polity that peace is the only just response to political division, any more than that reconciliation is the only just response to acts of violence or insult, or just bad manners!
Hamlet: Revenge VS Justice Mine Mine Sweet revenge (paper on revenge in Hamlet) The play Romeo and Juliet’ is a play of contrasts in it is as much about hatred as it is about love.
Discuss Mine Hey! 1. Justice involves the concepts of moral rightness, while revenge focuses more on a personal vendetta. 2. Justice is observed by the courts of law, while revenge is ‘enforced’ by an individual seeking retribution for a wrongdoing.
.The revenge vs justice philosophy essay