Some thoughts on justice, and especially the claim that retribution has no purpose beyond mere revenge:
Cesare Beccaria is often regarded as the founder of modern rational theories of justice. It is an amusing conceit to imagine we are wiser, better and more rational than our forebears. A glance at the newspaper including the horoscope column is a salutary counter to such naïve beliefs. The enlightenment was not enlightened, and in many ways, neither are we. Where it and we are really are wiser and more just, this knowledge and forbearance comes as much from those who preceded the enlightenment as from the philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries.
This is true in justice theory as much as in anything else.
Retribution is one of those words, like gay, clue, and peculiar, which has shifted in meaning over time. We think of it as punishment only, revenge for the sake of revenge. But its meaning becomes clearer, especially when trying to understand classical writers, when we consider it in the context of other “tribute” words. Contribute means to give together. Distribute means to give out. Retribute means to give back.
Thomas Aquinas viewed retribution as a crucial aspect of justice, and having a purpose beyond punishment for the sake of punishment.
Like many people now, Aquinas believed serious crime disrupted the moral order of the universe. Some crimes deserve punishment.
For example, a case has been described in Queensland newspapers over the last few weeks in which a two year old girl was tortured by her mother and her mother’s partner. She was chained naked to a toilet, forced to eat her own faeces, and beaten with bamboo rods. Then she was murdered, possibly by being repeatedly hit on the head and neck, and her body buried in a shallow grave.
Most people would be horrified by the thought that anyone who had committed such a crime should not suffer to some extent. They inflicted horrific pain and emotional suffering on a small child who had no way to understand what was being done to her by people who should have nurtured and protected her. Evil of this magnitude creates an imbalance which cries out to be righted. Are most people wrong? Was Aquinas wrong?
Retribution, by inflicting a proportionate punishment on the offender, helps to restore this balance. It pays back the harm caused by the crime, ensuring that justice is served, and seen to be served.
But retribution is not just revenge: While retribution involves inflicting suffering on the offender, Aquinas distinguished it from mere revenge. He emphasised that punishment should be administered by a legitimate authority and be proportionate to the offense, avoiding excessive or arbitrary cruelty. If it was not administered after due process, or was unnecessarily cruel or otherwise inappropriate, then instead of being just, it was merely another crime which itself called out to be remedied.
Beyond restoring balance, Aquinas also claimed retribution had a medicinal function. He believed punishment could deter both the offender and others from committing future crimes, thus contributing to the overall well-being of society. But even further than deterrence, a just punishment, when accepted as just by the offender, was the beginning of redemption for him or her. Aquinas believed that all people were loved by God, even the greatest sinners, and that punishment needed to be directed to moral balance, the good order of society, and the redemption of sinners.
In other words, while Thomas Aquinas believed retribution was necessary to establish and maintain any just and peaceful community, retribution was neither merely revenge, nor without purpose, and could not justly be pursued at the expense of other important goals, such as rehabilitation and the protection of society, and especially, the protection of the poor and those who cannot protect themselves.
Leave a Reply