With its prefix re-, which means “return,” retaliation literally means “refund.” And indeed, we usually use it when we talk about personal revenge, whether it`s retaliation for an insult in the hallway of a high school or retaliation for a guerrilla attack on a government building. But the punishment is not always so personal: God takes “divine vengeance” on man several times in the Old Testament, especially in the great flood that wiped out almost all mankind. And retaliation for criminal acts, usually in the form of a prison sentence, is borne by the state, not the victims. When religious leaders and philosophers reflected on retribution, the golden rule of reciprocity was taken into account. Punishment without regard to morality or ethics could be considered revenge. From these considerations, the concept of retaliatory justice has become a punishment that must correspond to the crime. The judicial sanction can never be used solely as a means of promoting another good for the criminal himself or for civil society, but in all cases it can only be imposed on him on the ground that he has committed a crime. In the context of retaliatory justice, it is also important that the perpetrators are actually guilty of the crime for which punishment was imposed. The true doctrine of deterrence, according to Jeremy Bentham`s utilitarian philosophy, allows innocent individuals to be punished if it fulfills a valuable social function (for example, creating and maintaining an image that crimes are detected and punished so that others are deterred from committing crimes). This idea is repugnant to retaliators who believe that punishments should only be imposed on those who have broken the law. The value of reprisals cannot be diminished by using them to compensate for shortcomings in the justice system. Of course, no theory of punishment is without its critics. Many of those who criticize retaliation argue that the philosophy is outdated.
As societies become more civilized, they should move beyond the need or desire for revenge. Others point out that punishing criminals simply for acting inappropriately does not address the underlying problems that may have led to the crimes. Some offenders require treatment rather than punishment; Without treatment, the cycle of crime will continue unabated. @hamje32 Yes, the notion of retaliatory justice seems to imply that we are dealing with “wrong” acts and not just criminal acts – so I agree that there are theological nuances in the word. In a perhaps surprising twist, the court ruled that Kennedy`s punishment was indeed incompatible with the crime, and overturned the lower court. In a 5-to-4 decision, the court ruled that Kennedy was the victim of “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment. He asserted that States do not have the right to impose the death penalty for a crime that did not result in the death of the victim and was never intentional. An example of reprisal in Kennedy v.
Louisiana was tried by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2008. Here, a Louisiana court found Patrick Kennedy guilty of raping his eight-year-old stepdaughter. Under Louisiana law, the death penalty is an available sentence for those convicted of raping a child under the age of 12. The prosecution asked for this as punishment for Kennedy, and the jury granted it. One of the reasons for the abandonment of retaliation by 20th century reformers was that they had abandoned the idea of personal autonomy, believing that science had discredited them. [7] Although retaliatory justice is generally considered to be the cornerstone of criminal sanction, it has also been shown to play a role in private law. [10] Transformative justice is a strategy, as the name suggests: it is a way of treating a crime as an educational and transformative opportunity for the perpetrator. Transformative justice focuses more on healing than on other forms of retribution. Transformative justice can be applied to many areas, including family law, corporate law and bankruptcy law. The problem with transformative justice is not so much whether the abuser can do something similar in the future, but whether the community is willing to support both the abuser and the victim.
Restitution and economic reprisals are two different things. Restitution is the act of compensating a person for harm or loss resulting from the actions of another person. For example, if someone steals $7,000 from their employer, the court can order a payment of $7,000 as compensation and how to settle things. For this reason, restitution is also called “restorative justice” because it “restores” a person to their pre-incident position, or at least as close as possible. @nony – I think it`s both. When you ask “in the legal sense”, do you mean legally sanctioned justice? In that sense, of course, this is not the case. Vigilant justice is by definition above the law and, therefore, the legal system would never sanction it as a legitimate form of retaliation. The term “retaliation” means revenge in the simplest sense. Punishment in the legal world refers to the act of imposing a punishment on someone who “corresponds to the crime”. In other words, an eye for an eye, or “treat others as you would have done to yourself.” For example, retaliation may involve a judge ordering either life imprisonment or the death penalty for someone after convicting them of murdering another person – a lifetime for a lifetime.
To explore this concept, consider the following definition of retaliation. The comments and ideas launched and transmitted by young people are so nonchalant without understanding. Its true meaning is that, if no judgment has been made about you, it may sound encouraging, but don`t believe the hype. What you circulate while you show and tell is like holding a shiny armed silencer with safety off. The possibility of it starting is likely, and only then will you understand its true definition, as some of us have been measured by it. Not proven, only judged. When offenders are believed to have gained an unfair advantage over others by breaking the law, justice systems attempt to move beyond punishment. Healing victims by fining them or ordering reparations are concepts aimed at making reprisals fairer for society as a whole. Unfortunately, these attempts do not always work as intended. My question is: Is vigilant justice really retaliation in the legal sense, or is it simply revenge? As for “support”, it may mean that the community is in favour of sending the perpetrator to prison for his crime. Detention, however, is less about punishment and more about isolating the abuser so that he or she can get the help he needs and be “transformed” into a more productive member of society. “The court`s decision is consistent with the justifications for the death penalty, retaliation and deterrence, see, for example, Gregg v.
Georgia, 428 U.P. 153. One of the factors in determining whether retaliation is carried out is whether the death penalty compensates for the injustice suffered by the victim in non-homicide cases. (Quote omitted.) It is by no means clear that the pain of the victim of child rape will be reduced if the law permits the death of the perpetrator, as capital cases require long-term engagement of prosecution witnesses. Society`s desire to cause death for child rape by recruiting the child victim over the years to help him or her seek the death penalty obliges the child who is not of age to make that choice.