Is Revenge Justifiable By Making Punishment The Responsibility Of Social Institutions

Today we often hear the phrase “revenge is oh how sweet” but really it is so far from the truth. In the story “The Cask of Amontillado” we are shown what it was like to take revenge rather than choose a path of forgiveness. Since our conscience may differ greatly from others though the action we take and how e feel about it after can vary as well. However, both revenge and forgiveness play an important role in our relationships and interactions.

This essay will critically analyse and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of retributivism. Throughout history the term “retributivism” has had a diverse though correlated meanings. The most significant meaning of retributivism is righting or rebalancing the scale of justice, through the use of mechanisms such as punishment e.g. punishing criminals in order to achieve justice for the offence they have committed. Retributivism also looks back at the offence, since the offender has committed a wrongful offence which needs to be punished. One of the core reasons why offenders should be punished is that they need to ‘pay back’ for the offence they have committed; the theory that is associated with retributivism is the just deserts theory. A theory is a concept that is based upon a hypothesis that can be supported with evidence. The just desert theory is used to justify retributivism punishment. Unlike other theories of punishment that mainly concentrates on preventing future crime, such as rehabilitation, deterrence and reductivism. The retributivist theory primarily concentrates on punishing past crimes. Although others would disagree with this for the reason that they think punishment should be used to ‘reduce’ and ‘prevent future crimes’ (Carlsmith et al., 2002 p284). The essay will take into account the views of various theories; theorist and philosophers so that the strengths and weaknesses of

Retribution is what most commonly referred to as the “just deserts” model that says the punishment should match the “degree of harm a criminal has inflicted on their victims” (Stohr, Walsh, & Hemmens, 2013, p.6). In other words,

According to Mahatma Ghandi, “An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind”. Revenge is a double-edge sword as it one is placed in a lose-lose situation. In Ed Vega’s short story “Spanish Roulette”, the central character poet Sixto struggles with enacting revenge against his sister’s rapist. In Francis Bacon’s essay, “On Revenge”, he discusses how taking justice into an individual’s hand shouldn’t be tolerated as it goes against the confides of the law of the land. Even though both Vega and Bacon implore the topic of vengeance, and how its integration has played a role in our society, the two offer contrasting views as to the moral ambiguity of revenge, its theoretical versus practical use, and the effectiveness it instills

In our day-to-day life, it is inevitable that someone will do or say things that will hurt or upset us. In the same way, laws were created to guide people, curb crime, and restore law and order in the society but still people happen to break laws despite the existence of law. However, someone may ask what is the best way of dealing with criminal behavior? Should the society embrace the concept of “an eye for an eye” or “get to the root” of the problem, or just simply to focus on and assist the victim (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2012 pg. 12)? Many studies conducted by criminal justice scholars in line with this debate point towards punishment to crimes committed as the most acceptable means of dealing with an injustice for most societies. However, still the moral basis for punishment is a conflicting issue that has given rise to numerous competing views. This paper will address reasons why an eye for an eye is the best means of dealing with criminal behavior and not focusing on the victim nor getting to the root cause of criminal behavior (Akers, 2013).

Our desire for retribution dates back as early as the 18th Century BC. We feel the need to see the wrongdoer have consequences for their actions. To be punished and feel the pain that their victim felt so they can also suffer. Some people love that idea that the person who commited a crime suffers by whatever means necessary. Knowing

Though the offender still believes that crime in general is wrong, they will justify or excuse their crime as necessary, morally correct or otherwise acceptable. Offenders might suggest that their crime was acceptable because they are not responsible (“Denial of Responsibility”), no harm occurred (Denial of Injury), the victim deserved to be victimized (“Denial of Victim”), the authorities have it out for them (Condemnation of the Condemners) or there is a higher good served by their actions (“Appeal to Higher Loyalties”). The offender in all of these cases recognizes that their actions were deviant, but argue that it was justified (Sykes and Matza , 2011). Under these theories, humans are considered to naturally want to commit crime, but generally believe that crime is wrong. When they do offend, they consider their offense to be justified exceptions to their belief in the wrongness of crime, the result of a lack of self-control or social bond.

Forgiveness is the excuse of an offense.But it never denies the offense, the hurt and damage still exists for years.When integrity is not justified, justice restores individuals and the society to show virtuousness.Justice is all about restoration, not revenge.Revenge is a retreat.But the society does it different from what most people do in personal relationships.Through the journey of individuals life, forgiveness is a special thing.It can be a choice or an emotional spirit.Some people tend to hold bitterness and injustice for years, while others can sweep away the situation.Some people might argue that forgiving with justice makes everything so much easier however, it is obvious that sometimes justice does not help with anything.Often there

He explains how this principle guides humanity by asking “how would punishment increase the happiness of society?” Some utilitarians may agree, in part, with Menninger as they view that “ a system of punishment, offers no incentive for the victim to involve himself in the criminal justice process other than to satisfy his feelings of duty or revenge [..]” (Barnett p 285). He discusses how even punishment which seeks to change an offender’s moral outlook or scare him, does nothing to provide them with skills needed to survive in the real world. Barnett offers up a new paradigm of restitution; in the old paradigm two people are seen at the same level, when a criminal commits an act against someone the victim is brought down and then by imprisoning the criminal they are also brought down; whereas in restitution both the victim and the criminal would be brought back

One of the oldest justifications for punishment involves the principles of retribution. Retribution (1900-1905) refers to an idea that offenders should be punished for committing a crime, but would not punish someone who was forced to commit a cri-me, i.e. duress. It can be sometimes be viewed as a

McKenzie Hoover Ms. Candelario 5 March, 2018 Class 3 Redemption People every day, all the time, are put into situations that really test their character. It may be they’re given two options and they have to pick between one, or it may be how they act when something happens. Two huge reactions people are faced with is redemption and revenge. Redemption is the action of coming back from something and realizing what you can do on the spot, self-reflect. Revenge is the action of retaliating and trying to make the person who hurt you feel as bad as they made you feel.

Punishment is defined as “the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense” (“Punishment”). Some prominent theories of punishment include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the moral education theory. Although retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation are all crucial components of punishment justification, independently the theories have weaknesses that avert the moral rationalization of punishment. I believe that Jean Hampton’s moral education theory is the best justification for punishment because it yields the most sympathetic and prudent reasons for punishment, while simultaneously showing that punishment cannot be justified by solely

Almost all general philosophies of punishment contribute different methods for determining any punishment’s fit with crime. Retributivism, a philosophy, broadly justifies the punishment that a person receive for breaking the law, through justice and the principle of desert. A common form of expressing the ideology of retribution is “an eye for an eye.” This theory consists of two main parts, the offender deserving punishment and the punishment should ft the crime. I will discuss the claim made by Retrbituivisist’s through focusing on whether Retributivist’s assumptions about moral responsibility are well founded.

Punishment has been in existence since the early colonial period and has continued throughout history as a method used to deter criminals from committing criminal acts. Philosophers believe that punishment is a necessity in today’s modern society as it is a worldwide response to crime and violence. Friedrich Nietzche’s book “Punishment and Rehabilitation” reiterates that “punishment makes us into who we are; it creates in us a sense of responsibility and the ability to take and release our social obligations” (Blue, Naden, 2001). Immanuel Kant believes that if an individual commits a crime then punishment should be inflicted upon that individual for the crime committed. Cesare Beccaria, also believes that if there is a breach of the

This paper will focus on retributive justice and restorative justice. Let’s begin with the definition of each. Retributive justice is a theory of justice that considers that punishment, if proportionate, is a morally acceptable response to crime. On the other hand, restorative justice is the opposite. It is a theory of justice that focuses on the needs of the victims and the offenders. So which of these should be morally right?