Talk:Retributive justice

moved China here:

In China, as part of the strike hard program, minor criminals are shot, and the bill for the bullet sent to their families.

The problem with mentioning China is that the **theory** of criminal punishment is restorative rather than retributive. China does use the death penalty a lot, but death penalty cases are suspended if the defendant has shown sufficient remorse. This actually puts an innocent defendant in a ***really*** bad position, because saying "I didn't do it" or not confessioning abjectly to the crime and begging the mercy of the court means that you are more likely to be shot. But even though the result might be harsh, the underlying theory is not retributive, so I'm not sure it is a good example. Also it needs to be mentioned that the strike hard program only existed for a few years, and it no longer exists.

--- Roadrunner

Not sure I agree with this article

According to Quinton in 'On Punishment' in Laslett, 'Philosophy, Politics and Society' (1956), the fundamental thesis of retributive justice is that guilt is a necessary condition of punishment. The further claim that it is a sufficient condition for punishment is logically (and in fact morally) independent of this, and it is to this latter claim that the lex talionis (an eye for an eye...&c.) applies. Note that 'an imbalance in the social order' is not an essential part of this theory: a retributionist who considers guilt a sufficient condition for punishment may hold that the punishment is justified eo ipso. Thus, the first lines of the article are, on this view, inaccurate: "Retributive justice is a theory of criminal justice wherein punishments are justified on the grounds that the criminal has created an imbalance in the social order that must be addressed by action against the criminal." and "The theory is often associated with harsh punishment, and the phrase an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' is a commonly heard justification for this theory" Furthermore, the 'deterrent' argument must be distinguished from the retributionist position, even if the two are often to be found coming from the same person(s). The deterrent argument is a further justification for punishment, over and above the strong retributionist position (guilt = necessary and sufficient) which argues that punishment is justified by guilt de facto. It is worth noting that Cavell ('The Claim of Reason', 1974) argues that a retributivist holds that guilt is, in fact, a sufficient, as well as necessary condition for punishment, but that the first of these facts arises not from the fact that crime creates a 'social imbalance', but simply because the criminal is guilty. This really seems to be the crux of the matter - a retributionist, in this (more conventional) sense holds that guilt demands punishment. The social question is a further consideration. Quinton and Cavell are quite an authority on this issue (note that Rawls, 1952, agrees with Quinton), and I think the article needs clearing up, although I don't want to tamper with it without the author's consent. In conclusion, I think that the 'social imbalance' point should be reconsidered, and that the article must differentiate clearly between the four independent positions I have mentioned: guilt is a necessary condition of punishment; guilt is a sufficient condition of punishment; lex talionis: the degree of punishment should somehow 'match' the seriousness of the crime; punishment can have a deterrent effect on potential criminals.

Retributive justice

In reference to the retributive justice article, do you have any more details about "the recent practical failings of restorative justice"? I am writing an article on restorative justice that will include 2001 stats from Department of Justice Canada showing restorative justice has lower recidivism than retributive justice[1] (http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/meta-e.pdf). Most of the data I have found (such as studies by University of Minnesota professor Mark Umbreit) show that restoration has better rates of victim and offender satisfaction as well. I will copy this message to the retributive justice talk page. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 19:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All right. If you can find anything specific about problems with restorative justice in the 1980s, that could be a good addition to the restorative justice article. Recidivism is the type of thing that takes longitudinal studies to measure. Those stats tend to be hard to come by. As late at 2000, Department of Justice Canada was reporting that the data were inconclusive (see The Effects of Restorative Justice Programming: A Review of the Empirical (http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/rr00-16a-e.pdf). However, by 2001, they apparently felt confident in saying that RJ was associated with lower recidivism rates (see The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Practices: A Meta-Analysis (http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/meta-e.pdf)), although with the caveat that there was a "file-drawer" problem, whatever that is. I will copy this discussion to the Restorative Justice page. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 18:48, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)