Punishment
Punishment is the practice of imposing something unpleasant on a subject as a response to some unwanted behavior or disobedience that the subject has displayed.
The word is the abstract substantivation of the verb to punish, which is recorded in English since 1340, deriving from Old French
puniss-, an extended form of the stem of
punir "to punish," from Latin
punire "inflict a penalty on, cause pain for some offense," earlier
poenire, from
poena "penalty, punishment".
Colloquial use of to punish for "to inflict heavy damage or loss" is first recorded in 1801, originally in boxing; for punishing as "hard-hitting" is from 1811.
In common usage, the word "punishment" might be described as "an authorized imposition of deprivations because the person has been found guilty of some criminal violation, typically (though not invariably) involving harm to the innocent." (according to the
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
The most common applications are in legal and similarly 'regulated' contexts, being the infliction of some kind of pain or loss upon a person for a misdeed, i.e. for transgressing a law or command (including prohibitions) given by some authority (such as an educator, employer or supervisor, public or private official).
In the field of Psychology, however, a more restrictive technical definition for "punishment" is the reduction of a behavior via a stimulus which is applied (
"positive punishment") or removed (
"negative punishment"). Making an offending student lose recess or suspension are examples of negative punishment, while chores or corporal punishments are examples of positive (i.e. active) punishment. If the offending behavior of the subject does not decrease then it is not considered punishment.
The person who undergoes punishment may, depending on the context, be called punishee, client (as in psychology), or, more from the viewpoint of the discipliner, offender, culprit, bottom in BDSM etc.
*Most often,
criminals are punished judicially, by
fines,
corporal punishment or
custodial sentences such as
prison; detainees risk further punishments for breaches of internal rules.
*
Children, pupils and other trainees are also punished by their educators or instructors (mainly
parents,
guardians, or
teachers, tutors and
coaches). The same used to apply to wives and unmarried daughters as they were not legally emancipated from 'paternal' (or succeeding marital) discipline.
*Slaves, domestic and other servants used to be punishable by their masters; in fact, even modern employees can still be subject to a contractual form of fine or demotion.
*Most hierarchical organizations, such as military and police forces, or even churches, still apply quite rigid internal discipline, even with a judicial system of their own (court martial, canonical courts).
* Punishment may also be applied on moral, especially religious, grounds, as in
penance (which is voluntary) or imposed in a theocracy with a religious police (as in a strict Islamic state like Iran or under the
Taliban) or (though not a true theocracy) by
Inquisition.
*In a wider sense, often termed
penalty, punishments can be incurred for infringing the rules of a game, as in sports, hazing (e.g., in
paddle games) etcetera. These include:
**Being sent off or sent to the bench ("sin bin"â€"time in sin-bin varies from game to game: 45 seconds in water polo, 2â€"10 minutes in ice hockey, 10 minutes in rugby, etc.), or even barred from playing for the whole match or even longer (as with red cards in soccer)
**Collective punishments, which don't only effect the offender but the whole team, such as penalty points, a shot at the goal for the opponent side, not being allowed to replace a player send to the bench.
The progress of civilization has resulted in a vast change alike in the theory and in the method of punishment. In primitive society punishment was left to the individuals wronged or their families, and was vindictive or retributive: in quantity and quality it would bear no special relation to the character or gravity of the offence.
Gradually there would arise the idea of proportionate punishment, of which the characteristic type is
an eye for an eye. The second stage was punishment by individuals under the control of the state, or community; in the third stage, with the growth of law, the state took over the primitive function and provided itself with the machinery of justice for the maintenance of public order. Henceforward crimes are against the state, and the exaction of punishment by the wronged individual is illegal (compare
Lynch Law). Even at this stage the vindictive or retributive character of punishment remains, but gradually, and specially after the humanist movement under thinkers like Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, new theories begin to emerge. Two chief trains of thought have combined in the condemnation of primitive theory and practice. On the one hand the retributive principle itself has been very largely superseded by the protective and the reformative; on the other punishments involving bodily pain have become objectionable to the general sense of society. Consequently corporal and even capital punishment occupy a far less prominent position, and tend everywhere to disappear. It began to be recognized also that stereotyped punishments, such as belong to penal codes, fail to take due account of the particular condition of an offence and the character and circumstances of the offender. A fixed fine, for example, operates very unequally on rich and poor.
Modern theories date from the 18th century, when the humanitarian movement began to teach the dignity of the individual and to emphasize his rationality and responsibility. The result was the reduction of punishment both in quantity and in severity, the improvement of the prison system, and the first attempts to study the psychology of crime and to distinguish between classes of criminals with a view to their improvement (see Crime; Prison; CHILDRENS COURTS; Juvenile Offenders).
These latter problems are the province of criminal anthropology and criminal sociology, sciences so called because they view crime as the outcome of anthropological viz. social conditions. The law breaker is himself a product of social evolution and cannot be regarded as solely responsible for his disposition to transgress. Habitual crime is thus to be treated as a disease. Punishment can, therefore, be justified only in so far as it either protects society by removing temporarily or permanently one who has injured it, or acting as a deterrent, or aims at the moral regeneration of the criminal. Thus the retributive theory of punishment with its criterion of justice as an end in itself gives place to a theory which regards punishment solely as a means to an end, utilitarian or moral, according as the common advantage or the good of the criminal is sought.
Michel Foucault describes in detail the evolution of punishment from
hanging, drawing and quartering of medieval times to the modern systems of
fines and
prisons. He sees a trend in criminal punishment from
vengeance by the King to a more practical, utilitarian concern for
deterrence and
rehabilitation.
A particularly harsh punishment is sometimes said to be
draconian, after
Draco, the lawgiver of the classical polis of Athens. But as the adjective Spartan still testifies, its wholly militarized rival Sparta was the harshest a state of law can be on its own citizens, e.g.
crypteia (including flogging for being caught when stealing as ordered).
In
operant conditioning, punishment is the presentation of a stimulus contingent on a response which results in a decrease in response strength (as evidenced by a decrease in the frequency of response). The effectiveness of punishment in suppressing the response depends on many factors, including the intensity of the stimulus and the consistency with which the stimulus is presented when the response occurs. In parenting, additional factors that increase the effectiveness of punishment include a verbal explanation of the reason for the punishment and a good relationship between the parent and the child.
Punishment can be divided into Positive punishment (the application of an aversive stimulus, such as pain) and Negative punishment (the removal or denial of a desired object, condition, or aversive stimulus).
Judicial and similar, i.e., for crimes
*Socio-economical punishments: :*
fines or loss of income :*
confiscation :* demotion, suspension or expulsion (especially in a strict hierarchy, such as military or clergy) :* restriction or loss of civic and other rights, in the extreme even civil death
* physical/corporal punishments (see below) : :*
corporal punishment s.s. Though the words physical and corporal simply derive from the Latin viz. Greek words for body, CP is often used more specifically to refer only to various forms of painful beating on body parts, usually taking the form of
whipping or
caning with various implements, and markings such as branding or mutilations such as
amputation and
castration. Legality of these varies from country to country. However it can be defined more widely:
:*
capital punishment is the most extreme form of punishment as it ends all bodily functions for good (used by a substantial number of countries, ironically including some that declare mere beating inhumaneâ€" see
use of death penalty worldwide) :* various uncomfortable positions, such as in too confined spaces or being tied down long in an unnatural position that puts muscles under increasingly painful stress, e.g.,
lying with the English imposed on
Boer boys imprisoned on Bermuda 1899â€"1902 in a cruel experiment of Anglicizing 'reeducation': "they were made to lie down on their backs on the ground with one army blanket beneath and one on top, their outstretched legs tied by the feet to pegs hammered into the ground, while their arms were stretched out above their heads, with their hands manacled and also tied to a peg in the ground. In this excruciating position they had to spend the night before receiving the following morning the prescribed number of whip lashes across the bare back while naked and held over a barrel. One Tommy held his ankles, another would clasped his hands together behind the boy's head and pushed it downwards" for such 'rebellious' misdeeds as speaking and singing their native Afrikaans (condensed translation from Penkoppe van die Tweede Vryheidsoorlog [Penkops of the Second War for Independence] 1899â€"1902 by Pets Marais) :*
custodial sentences include
imprisonment and other forms of forced detention (e.g., involuntary institutional psychiatry) and
hard labor are in fact also physical punishments, even if no actual beatings are in force internally; note that Behavioral Psychologists do not consider prison a sound punishment because most criminals are repeat offenders, thus, their behavior has not changed. If the behavior does not change then any stimulus that was presented is not punishment just aversive. :* forms of deprivation of sleep, food etcetera, though these are often unofficial or accessory :* excessive physical efforts such as prolonged
calisthenics or holding up a heavy object:*
banishment,
restraining order :* clinical castration for sexual assault is being tried in a few countries but may lead to charges of
eugenics, since the individual is rendered infertile as a result
*
public humiliation often combines social elements with corporal punishment, and indeed often punishments from two or more categories are combined (especially when these are meant reinforce each-other's effect) as in the logic of
penal harm.
For children
Examples of punishments imposed by educators (parents, guardians or teachers etc.; traditions differ greatly in time, place and cultural sphere; some are considered illegal
abuse in certain countries) include:
*
corporal punishment as above - mainly
spanking in various mode (banned in some countries, in others even prescribed by law) and uncomfortable and/or humiliating positions, e.g. kneeling, holding a heavy object up (also banned by certain legislators); as many educators saw these banned or disapprove themselves in some societies, there is a shift in these to such alternatives as:
*
time-outs such as corner-time or even locking up in a dark place
* writing lines or an imposed essay (often on a 'fitting' subject)
* mild forms of custodial sentences
**
detention, often combined with tasks like studying, extra homework etc.
**
grounding in general or specific refusal of permission to participate in some fun activity or to see a friend (usually seen as a bad influence)
* temporary removal of
privileges (e.g. denial of treats such as dessert, favorite meal, even no telephone,
TV or
computer use)
* confiscation (usually temporary) of a toy or other personal item; separation from a pet
* punishment haircuts (either very short or shaved)
* elements of restrictive or imposed
dress code* extra
chores* fining, usually by deduction from the allowance
Even the above have come under criticism in recent times. Arguments against non-violent modification of behavior include the issue of
ethics, and whether your will should be forced on your children.
Taking Children Seriously is a way to address the concerns mentioned in this paragraph.
Physical punishments - Types and means
While it is possible to classify corporal punishments by the categories of its scope of application (e.g. educational including parental and school discipline, other domestic, judicial etc.), i.e. by who can punish who and why, see above- this section elaborates the various ways to perform the physical torment.
Anatomical target
A crucial, inevitable choice is which part of the body is to suffer the painful treatment; sometimes a combination of several targets is chosen, so as to maximize the longer-lasting discomfort.
Several considerations can be taken into account, mainly :
* how painful is it
* how humiliating (especially if bared)
* how safe (except for deliberate mutilation -such as amputation and branding- or execution, grave permanent damage must be avoided) if badly hit and, even in more moderate cases, how incapacitating (unless the punishee is already under custodial sentence other than
hard labor, physically disabling the victim to work is rather contraproductive instead of coercing better -obedient, productive- conduct).
* In addition, for instant discipline on the spot the preference tends to go to what can be hit immediately, especially if already bare (possibly so ordered or arranged) or scarcely protected by clothing, so often head and hands, or bare torso; secondly what can be bared with a simple gesture (lifting a dress or pulling down (under)garments, before proceeding with a spanking, paddling, etc.
An 'dissection' of human anatomy in this vulnerable light:
* By far the most popular choice (i.e., with disciplinarians: they choose) are the
buttocks, indeed some languages have a specific word for their chastisement:
spanking (see this elaborate article) in English,
fessée in French,
nalgada in Spanish (both Romanesque words directly derived from the word for buttock)- this is a logical choice for these rather large, fleshy body parts are sensitive without endangering any bodily functions, heal well and relatively fast and have an intimate connotation that implies intense humiliation, often increased as baring them often also exposes the genitals--care must be taken not to hit these accidentally, so protective padding may be used (also for the kidneys) with dangerous implements, even if the spankee is otherwise stark naked
* although lower parts of the back of the legs, notably thighs and calves, are reportedly about as sensitive and no more incapacitating, making them a logical alternative in cultures where a bare bottom is too indecent, they are rarely targeted
* the back and the shoulders are the second most common choice; as long as the spine (paralysis possible) and excessive abuse of the kidneys (irreparable) is avoided, great pain is possible with limited incapacitation and humiliation, suitable for an adult 'honor corps' as often in the military
* the abdomen and the ribs are again rather dangerous for 'accidental' damage, and hence not a common target
* except for deliberate mutilation, the genitalia are rarely targeted, though very sensitive and the most humiliating, for the damage is to hard to control (except with sophisticated modern methods such as electrodes)
* joints (such as knees) are an even more illogical, indeed rather rare choice: no humiliation, grave risk of incapacitation and even permanent damage
* the head is also a dangerous choice, but more popular, especially the cheeks (relatively safe; indeed the same word is used for the bottom: butt-cheeks) and boxing the ears (hearing disability tends to manifest itself years later, so it's often ignored)
* the hand of primates is perhaps evolution's finest product in terms of multifunctionality and precision (hence the notion 'dexterity'), requiring a sophisticated sense of touch; it is quite sensitive and not humiliating, while great force, especially with a hard implement, could cause excessive damage, so usually only the (most fleshy) palm is hit rather than the knuckles, and even then incapacitation (for manual labor and writing as in class) is generally a drawback
* the soles of the feet are extremely sensitive, in se not humiliating, but quite incapacitating for a long time, while full recovery is possible even after an excruciating dose- see
falakaStill other methods are aimed at the interior, such as non-lethal intoxication,
forced-feeding; at the muscles (difficult positions, exercices); or at the whole body, as with hunger, thirst, exhaustion.
Set and props
Except for 'daily' light punishment, physical discipline is often ritualized, even staged in a rather theatrical fashion.
As the great variety of practices, even in similar jurisdictions, suggests, tradition and the taste of the punishing parties in place often carry at least as much weight as objective practical considerations, especially if one considers there seems to have been relatively little effort to obtain functional knowledge from systematic comparative research.
=Site & Location
=While light and informal punishment is often administered on the spot, for serious discipline and in an institutional context there are often rules, either laid down as such or deriving from written rules (e.g. if a juvenile is to receive his lashing from the police, he is logically brought there for punishment).
=Apparatus
=Contraptions the punishee is to be over, on and/or fixed to do not only have a practical function (which is their origin) during punishment but can also be left in place as a permanent, dissuasive display of the authority to inflict painful punishment, to deter disobedience that may cause the observing 'jurisdictional subject' to end up there for a lashing. See further under
spanking, also for related positioning.
*
Falaka* frame
* punishment horse
* trestle
=Punitive implements
=A variety of implements are used for physical punishment. The terms used to describe these are not fixed, varying by country and by context. There are, however, a number of common types which are frequently encountered when reading about corporal punishment. These include the following - link through for more detailed information an each, the labels here are :
*
Rods, varying in size and flexibility.
**A thin, flexible rod is often called a
switch.
** The
Birch, a number of strong, flexible branches, bound together in their natural state.
**Caning with
canes of various types, most notably durable species of rottan, known at the
rattan, or similar non-flat solid implements in on piece, e.g. (hickory) stick; even heavier cudgels.
* The
Paddle, a flat wooden or leather pad with a handle, sometimes holed, is still commonly used for corporal punishment in the USA.
* For
flogging, various flexible implements are used, mostly in leather (modifications such as knots, holes or hard -e.g. metal, bone- objects fixed on them render he 'bite' considerably harder), including:
**
Straps of various types including (razor)
strop.
** not to be confused with the lighter
belt (thinner, suppler) which is often doubled, yet in
Scotland and northern England, the term belt is also a euphemism for the
tawse, a strap split into a number of tails at one end.
**
Whips are common in judicial punishment and prison discipline, with varieties including
crops, the famous Russian
knout and South African
sjambok** multi-thong equivalents include the
scourge and
martinet in leather; while rope is the most common material for a
flogger and the
cat o' nine tails (mainly used in naval discipline, for army and judicial including prison flogging a leather version was common; there were also milder forms and variants).
* axe, knife, sword and other blanc weapons or even the surgical scalpel etc are generally used for punishments named otherwise than by the instrument, rather by the damage down by cutting bodyparts, as in
flaying,
castration or (indetermined)
amputation * a hot iron is used for
branding (alternatively a tattoo-like technique) and other burn wounds
However, it is frequent for informal -mainly non-institutional- corporal punishment to be administered with whatever object comes to hand. It is common, for instance, wooden
spoons, slippers or
hairbrush (wooden or ebony backside) or bath brush to be used in domestic punishment, whilst rulers and other classroom equipment have been used in schools, as well as some items adopted from domestic practice, such as
slippering (unlike booting not on the foot but wielded by hand, rather like a paddle).
Pervertibles are various objects than can be used as punitive implement (mainly in
BDSM or the private sphere, open to improvisation), so we don't go into detail; when used for coercive CP, they are generally handled as a rather obvious substitute for a similar type from the groups above- the most common are included, and ultimately nearly every implement is derived from an inoffensive utility.
=Other
=
*chemicals, such as poison, biting acid
*
Dramatis personae
While a summary punishment can routinely be performed with only two participants, e.g. an educator putting a naughty child over his lap and spanking its bottom while scolding its misdeeds, there is often, especially with a more severe punishment and/or in an institutional context, a more elaborate and formalistic procedure which can involve a small host of cast members, most of whom can make a difference to what exactly will happen and how
=On the punishing side
=
* It all starts with the authority to punish : for judicial punishment, this is normally the legislator, who defines the rules, at least in principle, as to which inacceptable actions are to be met with painful punishment, and who can apply them; the rules can be extremely precise, or at least aim to be, in determining a concordance between crime and punishment, or leave considerable margin; sometimes a specific case is dealt with at this very level, as for a political crime; in other spheres, often within general rules laid down by the actual legislator, the rules can be made by the school board, the master of the slaves/household, etcetera. However in real life minor punishments are often left to the ad hoc discretion of the discipliner, even where severe punishments have to be met with formal procedure- e.g.
* Next there is the role of the judge, who determines for each punishable deed whether the conditions for application are met and fixes the fitting punishment; this judgment can go into more details, usually including (possibly simply repeating the specifications in the rules, sometimes modifying those) the anatomical target, the implement, the number of strokes, and whether the victim will be bared; in the non-judicial spheres, this can be for example the teacher in class or the headmaster, dean of discipline etcetera (often only for graver offenses), an overseer, any officer or subaltern, etcetera
* Finally there is the actual punishment officer(s) charged with the physical execution; while in private spheres this is often the same as the 'judge', judicial sentences are generally ordered to be carried out by a third party specified by the law or in the judgment (otherwise it lay be impicite custom), usually the police, (para)military, prison staff, even a
bailiff, or a professional
executioner; imprecise judgments may leave considerable discretion to this level, e.g. determining with which implement to administer a punishment merely expressed in an ambivalent wording such as 'lashes', leaving a choice from the customary arsenal of implements, definitely affecting the gravity of the beating. Occasionally two or more officers (e.g.
bosun's mates wielding the cat o' nine tails) take turns in administering a considerable number of lashes, so as to be 'fresh' enough to hit hard; a subtle ploy is including a left-handed one, so as the assure the stripes will frequently crisscross, which cuts even deeper
* Sometimes an element of revenge is build in by allowing a party grieved by the punishee the satisfaction (even greater when naked and/or over the lap) of administering all or part of the sentence, or is even built in at corps spirit level, as described in the article
fustuarium* Alternatively a prisoner may be charged, as a
trustee, with administering punishment to other convicts, as was commonly the case in imperial Russia's judicial
knout floggings.
* Sometimes the choice of a specific administrator is guided by the punishee's expected perception:
* Some may only play a subsidiary role, such as to fetch implements, to tie down the victim, to grip him down (say one per limb; hence called
holder-down- as these get a very close view, or even divest, the humiliation factor is thus enhanced in case of punishment in the bare) or even to be used physically to horse him on
* Occasionally several punishees are even made to use the same implement on each-other; as in
trading licks, or even because the punishment officer would get to tired during a mass beating
=The victim of the punishment
=The punished party is often described by terms referring to his legal or other punishable status, e.g. convict, prisoner, culprit, miscreant, offender, or to the type of punishment imposed, e.g. spankee, whippee.
*While he is the center of attention, as a rule little or no choice is given to him (or if so it's often meant to be tantalizing, neither option being preferable, e.g. a graver implement or more cuts), and his submission is coerced, e.g. extra swats for not maintaining the imposed (exposed) position or on the hands if they move in a reflex to the agonizing posterior.
* Furthermore in some cases punishees are even forced -a rather sadistic ploy- to some cooperation, such as sailors having to prepare a
cat o' nine tails for use on their own back; children sent to cut a switch or rod (possibly in advance, e.g., once a year as a reminder of being subject to it) for use on their own bottoms, again under threat of extra cuts; or less dramatically children or pledges fetching (or in the latter case even supplying) the cane or paddle for their own chastisement
=Medical officer(s)
=
* often it is prescribed by law, sentence or custom that a medically qualified person must examine the condemned (in the judicial sphere, not in the domestic model) to estimate whether his condition (e.g. cardiological) requires the beating to be postponed, mitigated or even abandoned, though generally this is a formality
* usually the same stays to observe the execution of the sentence, in principle to intervene if the victim is in excessive (especially mortal) danger, but again this rarely results in cessation (some die nevertheless), or he even limits himself to bringing the convict back to conscience
* after the wounds have been inflicted, especially with an instrument reputed for its damaging bite, such as the judicial cane or cat o'nine tails, either the same as above or -especially if there was none yet- another, such as prison infirmary staff, generally examines the wounds, which may urgently require medical care such as disinfecting and dressing
=Passive witnesses
=
*Especially if a precise punishment is imposed by regulations or specified in a formal sentence, often one or more official witnesses are prescribed, or somehow specified (e.g. from the faculty in a school, court -, police - or military officers) to see to the correct execution. Although this is often motivated as a guarantee against excess and for fair application, many victims rather perceive them as further embarrassment.
* a party grieved by the punishee may be allowed the satisfaction of witnessing the humbled state of exposure and agony
* the presence of peers, such as class mates, or an even more public venue such as a pillory on a square, in modern times even press presence, may serve two purposes: increasing the humilitation of the punishee and serving as an example to the audience
* arrangements for peers subjects to the same punishment, or in line to suffer it soon, to hear the agony or see the beaten punishee frog-marched afterwards or even under the shower may be designed to terrify them
Other parameters of severity
* Firstly there is the dosing: how many strokes? This is of course easy to prescribe, so the choice is clearly attributed.
* An objective flaw in the system is that only mechanical administration (not practiced for beatings, as opposed to say the guillotine in capital punishment) would make the dosage an objective measure of the force applied, allowing a realistic estimation of the corporal damage it inflicts; even then, the actual level of induced pain can only be guessed as it depends on the individually varied threshold of sensitivity, even if allowances are made for such factors as age/size, but a discipliner who repeatedly punishes the same person(s) (such as an educator) may get a reasonable feel for it, raising the dilemma if justice is best served by equal punishment for equal crimes or by equal suffering
* Various subtle modes of application also influence the efficiency of a stroke, e.g. British policemen wielding the birch learned it hurts even more if a move of the hand makes it slide along (like a claw) just when it reaches the bare skin
Procedure
For further details on positions and sequence of actions, see under
spanking : most is identical or derives logically from what is said there
Other
*
penance *
psychological punishments
*
reinforcementSee also: Criminal justiceThere are many possible reasons that might be given to justify or explain why someone ought to be punished; here follows a broad outline of typical, possibly contradictory justifications.
Deterrence
Deterrence means dissuading someone from future wrongdoing, by making the punishment severe enough that the benefit gained from the offense is outweighed by the cost (and probability) of the punishment.
Deterrence is a very common reason given for why someone should be punished. However, it is sometimes claimed that using punishment as a deterrent has the fundamental flaw that human nature tends to ignore the possibility of punishment until they are caught, and actually can be attracted even more to the 'forbidden fruit', or even for various reasons glorify the punishee, e.g. admiring a fellow for 'taking it like a man'.
Rehabilitation
Some punishment includes work to reform and
rehabilitate the wrongdoer so that they will not commit the offense again. This is different from deterrence, in that the goal here is to change the offender's attitude to what they have done, and make them come to accept that their behaviour was wrong.
Incapacitation
In the prison system, imprisonment has the effect of confining prisoners, physically preventing them from committing crimes against those outside, i.e. protecting the community. The most dangerous criminals may be sentenced to
life imprisonment, or even to irreparable alternatives -the
death penalty, or
castration of sexual offenders- for this reason of the common good.
Restoration
For minor offences, punishment may take the form of the offender "righting the wrong"; for example, a vandal might be made to clean up the mess he has made.
In more serious cases, punishment in the form of fines and compensation payments may also be considered a sort of "restoration".
Retributive justice, or Retribution
Retribution is the practice of "getting even" with a wrongdoer - the suffering of the wrongdoer is seen as good in itself, even if it has no other benefits. One reason for
societies to include this judicial element is to diminish the perceived need for street justice, blood revenge, and
vigilantism.
A specific way to elaborate this concept in the very punishment is the
mirror punishment (the more literal applications of "an eye for an eye"), a penal form of 'poetic justice' which reflects the nature or means of the crime in the means of (mainly corporal) punishment.
Honoring Values
Punishment can be seen to honor the values codified in law. In this view, the value of human life is seen to be honored by the punishment of a murderer. Proponents of
capital punishment have been known to base their position on this concept.
There are some commentators such as
Chuck Colson who accept this view as valid but believe that the fallibility of human justice systems should preclude using it as a justification.
*
*Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
**
Punishment **
Legal Punishment*
Etymology OnLine*Further reading:
**Bebin, Xavier.
Pourquoi punir? l'approche utilitariste de la sanction pénale, L'Harmattan, 2006.
**Brooks, Thom. 'Corlett on Kant, Hegel, and Retribution',
Philosophy 76 (2001): 561-80.
**Brooks, Thom. 'Kant's Theory of Punishment',
Utilitas 15 (2003): 206-24.
**Brooks, Thom. 'T.H. Green's Theory of Punishment',
History of Political Thought 24 (2003): 685-701.
**Brooks, Thom. 'Retributivist Arguments against Capital Punishment',
Journal of Social Philosophy 35 (2004): 188-97.
**Brooks, Thom. 'Is Hegel a Retributivist?'
Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 49/50 (2004): 113-26.
**Brooks, Thom. 'Kantian Punishment and Retributivism',
Ratio 18 (2005): 237-45.
**Burgh, R.W. 'Do the Guilty Deserve Punishment?'
Journal of Philosophy 79 (1982): 193-210.
**Cottingham, John. 'Varieties of Retribution',
Philosophical Quarterly 29 (1979): 238-46.
**Davis, Michael. 'How to Make the Punishment Fit the Crime',
Ethics 93 (1983): 726-52.
**Duff, R.A.
Trials and Punishments Cambridge University Press, 1986.
**Duff, R.A.
Criminal Attempts Clarendon 1996.
**Duff, R.A.
Punishment, COmmunication, and Community OXford University Press 2001.
**Duff, R.A. 'Answering for Crime',
Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 106 (2006): 85-111.
**Ewin, R.E. 'What is Wrong with Killing People?'
Philosophical Quarterly 22 (1972): 126-39.
**Farrell, D.M. 'The Justification of General Deterrence',
Philosophical Review 94 (1985): 367-94.
**Feinberg, Joel.
The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, 4 vols. Oxford University Press, 1984-88.
**Hampton, Jean. 'The Moral Education Theory of Punishment',
Philosophy & Public Affairs 13 (1984): 208-38.
**Honderich, Ted.
Punishment: The Supposed Justifications. Penguin, 1969.
**Husak, Douglas. 'Why Punish the Deserving?'
Nous 26 (1992): 447-64.
**Husak, Douglas. 'The Criminal Law as Last Resort',
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 24 (2004): 207-35.
**Kahan, Dan. 'The Secret Ambition of Deterrence',
Harvard Law Review 113 (1999): 413-500.
**Morris, Herbert. 'Persons and Punishment',
Monist 52 (1968): 475-501.
**Nino, C.S. 'A Consensual Theory of Punishment',
Philosophy & Public Affairs 12 (1983): 289-306.
**Nussbaum, Martha. 'Equity and Mercy',
Philosophy & Public Affairs 22 (1993): 83-125.
**Simmons, A.J. 'Locke and the Right to Punish',
Philosophy & Public Affairs 12 (1983): 175-204.
**Walker, Nigel.
Why Punish? Oxford University Press, 1991.
