Rasida Thomas
Professor Potocki
Literature 327-03 Crime, Punishment, and Justice in World Literatures
Thinking Piece #1
February 10, 2015
Retributivism vs. Vengeance
Retributivism is a theory of punishment consistently linked to the concept of vengeance. Vengeance is an act of retaliation as retributivism is a punishment inflicted on individuals who have engaged in a criminal act and are given a punishment in proportionate to the crime they have committed. Although, retributive justice differs from vengeance, this theory and concept are constantly perceived as having the same meaning. In the excerpt, Punishment, Brooks highlights the key differences between retributivism and vengeance and provides a more thorough understanding between this
…show more content…
Medea’s acts of murder within the play certainly fits the Brooks definition of vengeance. After her husband betrayed her in marrying King Creon’s daughter, Medea became filled with anger, sadness, depression, and hate. Medea felt a need to seek revenge against her husband because he violated an oath and betrayed her. As an act of revenge, Medea killed her husband’s new wife and killed the children she had with her husband. Medea clearly states that she wanted Jason to hurt as much as she was hurting and so this was the only way to get him back. This was certainly an act of vengeance because Medea withheld private anger towards her husband in which sparked her retaliation and attacks against him. As stated by Brooks, vengeance is an act of private justice and the acts of Medea were certainly vengeful acts to get back at her husband. In the play, Medea’s acts of murder also complicates with Brook’s definition. For example, Medea wants to punish Jason for betraying her but her acts are not considered a retributivist punishment because her acts weren’t of public justice and Jason act didn’t break any public laws. Medea also claims that Jason broke an oath in which can be linked to breaking a law and receiving a punishment but it is still
Many people percieve revenge to be something that falls under justice, as they are driven by emotions, while others consider getting the police involved as serving justice. Moreover, some people find revenge to be pleasing and satisfying, but to argue the point that just because something is more satisfying does not mean it is
In her, “Between Vengeance and Forgiveness,” Martha Minow discusses, not only the tandem needs of truth and justice that arise and intersect in the wake of conflict but also the duality existing between the notions of vengeance and forgiveness that surface as needs, particularly in a society recovering from violence. The central question of Minow’s work explores the idea that there may be a need for middle ground between vengeance and forgiveness. For the purposes of this work, in delineating first the needs of victims and then the needs of society at large in the wake of violent conflict situations, it may be asserted the Minow’s middle ground abides at the intersection of acknowledgment of harms and retribution for harms committed. To demonstrate
Final Exam Kristina McLaughlin Saint Joseph’s University CRJ 565 Question 1: Word Count The judicial system is based on the norms and values that individuals are held to within society. When a person is found guilty of committing a criminal act, there must be a model that serves as the basis of what appropriate punishment should be applied. These models of punishment are often based off of ethical theories and include retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restoration. The retribution model of punishment views the offender as responsible for their actions and as such, the punishment should fit the crime (Mackie, 1982).
Consequentialism is a punishment theory that provides moral justification for punishment by taking into account future consequences and by weighing the intrinsic value of a punishment against other available alternatives. The primary rationale for punishment is to bring the most good over harm, to deter or prevent crimes from occurring in the first place and to prevent future crimes from being committed. Utilitarianism would even consider punishing the innocent or pass a more severe sentence for a lesser crime if it could be determined that benefits to society outweighed the consequences of such punishment (Howard). For example, if it were believed that better crime deterrence or prevention could be achieved, a consequentialist would consider executing a murderer versus handing down a life sentence. Retributivism is a punishment theory that looks back at the specific nature of a crime and determines how much the victim suffered, in order to morally justify the severity of punishment. The moral emphasis is on righting a wrong and seeking justice by ensuring that criminals get what the...
With the field of philosophy, the concept of "desert" suggests the status of deserving a particular response based upon prior action. The term is often invoked within conversations dealing with blame and justice. However, philosophers disagree on whether desert justifies responsive behaviors such as punishment or revenge. This debate is particularly significantly within the context of a legal system that purports to punish criminals in a manner that is consistent with their crimes.
Norms of Revenge. 4. Blackwell Publisher, 1990. 862. eBook. . Bar-elli, G. and Heyd, D. (1986), Can revenge be just or otherwise justified?.
Greg Mantle, F. D., & Dhami, M. K. (2005). Restorative justice and three individual theories of crime. Internet Journal of Criminology IJC , 1-36. Retrieved from http://www.restorativejustice.org/articlesdb/articles/5914
Medea was set on vengeance, which was her sole purpose throughout the book (Pg 13). She was strong-willed, well on her raging path of revenge throughout the story. When Jason betrayed her, their vows, her trust, as well as their children, her anger was born. She spoke of hatred and evil and after Jason’s treachery. She was justified to be filled with such negative emotion, especially after the cruel way Jason neglected their vow of love. Seeking revenge seemed logical in her sense, but she did her demons overtook her, and she eventually killed Jason’s new love, beloved princess Glauce, her father, King Kreon, and her two children. Being furious is acceptable, but killing people because of another’s actions is morally wrong.
Retribution – is a correctional aim which is to hold a person who has committed a crime accountable for committing a crime against another or society in the form of punishment. (Stojkovic and Lovell 2013) What we look at in retribution is when someone is punished there is legitimacy in the punishment of a particular crime that was committed. Some of the pros of retribution are retribution can make a person or society feel safer or a feeling of justice being served when a person is punished for the crime they committed. The con of retribution is during court proceedings the prosecution and the offender’s lawyer may come to a plea agreement which could give the offender a lesser sentence than what he or she would have gotten originally. (Stojkovic and Lovell 2013)
In their book Homicide, evolutionary psychologists Margo Wilson and Martin Daly identify one such conflict between human nature and the contemporary cultural order. They argue that humans have an innate concept of justice which is based on the idea of personal revenge. According to this concept of justice, it is legitimate and even praise-worthy for people to whom a wrong has been done to avenge the wrong-doing themselves.
...play has many significant decisions but the decisions by Medea to get revenge, which leads her to murdering many people in the process, is the most dramatic decision of all. It shows all the horror that can come from our decisions, and that we should not let revenge rule our lives as it did Medea’s. Overall, the story was very entertaining with all of Medea’s unthinkable decisions and she received no punishments for what she did, really made the play unpredictable. Euripides used a variety of concepts throughout the play that leaves it up to the audience to interpret Medea, in a variety of ways. Revenge, betrayal, passion, love, etc. are all feelings portrayed in Medea and they are what help shape the overall meaning of the play. In conclusion, one can feel that Medea’s focus of revenge took over her life, and she made the decision to choose passion over reasoning.
Punishment is not directly caused because a person is being held responsible for past transgressions, instead it is dealt out due to anger over the wrong that’s b...
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, what they “justly deserve”. Where minor crimes should expect a minor punishment, those who commit more severe crimes should expect to be met with just as severe of a punishment in return. An example, some believe that when someone kills someone else, that person should then, in turn, receive the death penalty (depending on the state this would also be allowed or expected by law).
Although Medea killed and did things that people felt were wrong it is evident that through out the play that along with her other characteristics, she was a caring and loving person. The first time we are shown this is when we discover everything she did for Jason. If she did not love him she would not have done those things. We are also shown that Medea can be a caring person by the love that she had for her children. Although she killed them in the end during the play she was a mother to her children, she showed affection to them, and she did think twice before she killed them. It is because Medea was a caring and loving person that she did what she did. Her feelings were hurt and her heart was broken; and she did what she felt she had to do to hurt Jason for hurting her.
We are a human being and we are different in nature and we can’t get along with each other all the time. We hurt people sometime and someone hurts us because of some reasons. We are accepting the fluctuations every moment. While working with different people, they sting us for various ways either by purpose or by accident. Most of the people think to take a revenge with them by hurting them back or doing something that will have negative impact on them. But thinking all of the revenge is valueless and we don’t have that far distance to go together. We might separate tomorrow or today by the end of the day that we are not sure. Walking with uncertainties in every moment, it is a shame to dream to harm somebody for their mistreatment. We don’t know the truth whether their treatment was fair or not by their purpose. Even if we know somebody hurts us by purpose, taking revenge with them affecting their individual life doesn’t make a sense in our too short journey.