Justice, Retributive

Retributive justice concerns fairly blaming or punishing people for their wrongdoing. Descriptions of retributive justice are found throughout recorded history. Often the notion of retributive justice is described as “an eye for an eye,” a concept that provides the basis for Western theories of punishment.

Those who favor punishment based on concepts of retributive justice believe that treating people as responsible adults is core to recognizing the essential humanity of each person. To not deny someone the privilege of being held responsible for his or her choice is treating them as less than a full human being or as a child. Thus, those who align themselves in the deontological tradition—duty and rationality governing our search for the ideal—are often vocal proponents of retribution for wrongdoing.

In recent years, the principle of retributive justice has been moderated by the idea of rehabilitation, providing people the skills and resources necessary to avoid a life of crime. The belief behind the theory of rehabilitation is that people basically are good and violate the laws only because they believe they have no other choice. Theorists in this camp believe that illiteracy and poverty are two of the greatest drivers causing people to choose a life of crime. Thus, those who align themselves in the teleological tradition—seeking happiness while living a virtuous life—are often vocal proponents of rehabilitation.

The tension between the two approaches was seen in the sentencing of ex-Adelphia CEO John Regas. The court sentenced the ailing 80-year-old to 15 years in prison, which seemed a moderate punishment compared to the 215-year sentence sought by the prosecution. However, rehabilitation is clearly not an objective as the 15-year sentence seemed designed to send a message to all other executives who might be considering bending—or breaking—the rules.