Retributivism

Retributivism is a theory of punishment that holds that individuals who commit wrongful acts deserve to be punished in proportion to the seriousness of their wrongdoing. The central idea is moral desert: punishment is justified by the offender’s culpability, independently of any social or practical benefits that punishment might produce, such as deterring crime or reforming the offender. In this view, the purpose of punishment is to respond to moral offense and to restore a balance harmed by the wrongdoing.

Key principles include imputability (the offender could be held morally responsible), desert (punishment is deserved for the act), and proportionality (the punishment should be commensurate with the crime). Some theorists distinguish between a pure or hard form of retributivism and a more tempered or conditional form that allows limited consideration of consequences but still centers on desert.

Retributivism is often contrasted with utilitarian theories of punishment that justify penalties for their future effects (deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation). Contemporary debates feature philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, who argued punishment should express respect for moral law and be proportionate to wrongdoing, and Michael S. Moore, who defended a modern, desert-based account. Critics raise concerns about the coherence of desert, potential for cruel or unjust outcomes, and the fairness of determining proportionality in imperfect information or biased systems. Despite criticisms, retributivism remains a major position in discussions of criminal justice, informing debates about punishment and human rights and shaping attitudes toward severe penalties when crimes are judged especially blameworthy.