Question

Retributivism justifies punishment on the basis of desert. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this approach?

Answer 1

Retributivism is a form of justice which forwards an assessment of punishment proportional to the harm incurred by the criminal offence because the logic is that the criminal deserves it. In this approach, prevention of similar crimes in the future or rehabilitation of the offender are not the concerns which determine the nature of punishment. Retributivism as a theory of punishment allows for the existence and establishment of systems of punishment because it is based on the simple rationale that we are justified in punishing people who intentionally perpetrate harm against others. Flowing from this, One can clearly see an adavantage to such an approach. From the Kantian morality, retributivism validates the institution of law in itself as it makes it imperative that punishment be guided not towards serving the individual’s or the criminals own personal interests or the interests of civil society but towards the larger question of an ethical justice and the legal system and this framework thus allows for the existence and independence of the court of law in present political systems.

However, the retributive approach to punishment can be criticised on the grounds that it practices a very nebulous and limiting definition of justice such as when the juridicians may accord a fine on a convict in proportion to the offense irrespective of the sociology economic background of the person thereby creating greater disparity between a wealthy criminal and a poor criminal. Thus in practice, a uniform proportional assessment of punishment irrespective of the specifications of each case can ulmitately end up challenging the very idea of justice by creating greater social inequality.