Retributionalism

Retributionalism is a theory of punishment that holds that the proper response to a crime is to inflict punishment on the offender. This punishment is seen as a deserved consequence for the wrongful act committed, rather than a means to achieve some future good, such as deterrence or rehabilitation. The core idea is that justice requires that those who break the law suffer in proportion to the severity of their offenses. This concept is often summarized by the principle of "an eye for an eye," though modern retributionalism is typically more nuanced.

The justification for retributionalism rests on principles of desert and fairness. It argues that individuals have free will and are therefore responsible for their actions. When they choose to commit a crime, they forfeit certain rights and incur an obligation to be punished. This punishment is not necessarily about vengeance, although it can be a component for some proponents. Instead, it is about restoring a moral balance that has been disrupted by the crime. By punishing offenders, society is seen as affirming the value of the law and the rights of victims.

Retributionalism can be contrasted with other theories of punishment, such as utilitarianism, which focuses on the future consequences of punishment. Utilitarian theories, like deterrence or rehabilitation, aim to reduce future crime by making punishment unpleasant or by reforming the offender. Retributionalism, however, looks backward to the offense itself and argues that punishment is justified because the offender deserves it, regardless of whether it prevents future crime. This focus on backward-looking justification is a defining characteristic of retributional thought.