Restitution and reconciliation

Abstract

I. Introduction. The debt/atonement model of punishment seeks to reconcile the criminal with his direct victim, as well as the larger community, through restorative mechanisms of restitution and atonement.[i] As a result, it has certain advantages over better known rivals.[ii] Unlike retribution, reform and deterrence, the approach does some good, first and foremost, for the victim of the crime. But it can also benefit the victimizer and indirectly victimized members of the larger community. Competing theories usually profit but one of the three. They also fail to do as well in removing the tension between justice and mercy. Yet even when mercy is not an option, retribution, reform and deterrence can dictate punishments that are intuitively excessive. But the problem isn’t just that of excess. At others times, it seems they will endorse inappropriately lenient responses to crime. I will argue that a properly construed debt/atonement approach, despite its stress on punishment taking the form of restitution, can handle three common objections that it is incapable of providing appropriate punishments. The first is that it cannot justify punishing murder for the dead cannot be compensated. Even if this turns out to be true, surprisingly, it bestows no relative advantage upon rival accounts for if the dead cannot be benefited, then they cannot be harmed, and thus punishing killers who did not harm those they killed will be difficult for any theory to justify. The second objection is that it cannot accommodate our practice of publishing failed attempts where there appears to be no harm when the target didn’t even know the attempt transpired. Ironically, it turns out that only the advocated approach can justify our practice of punishing failed attempts less severely than successes. The third objection is that the theory sometimes advocates making criminals suffer in order to satisfy the vindictive desires of their victims. I’ll argue that so harming criminals is a defensible way to extract the debt payment they owe their victims..

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,202

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-02-27

Downloads
56 (#274,303)

6 months
3 (#902,269)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

David B. Hershenov
State University of New York, Buffalo

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Persons and Punishment.Herbert Morris - 1968 - The Monist 52 (4):475-501.
The punishment that leaves something to chance.David K. Lewis - 1987 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 18 (1):53-67.
Restitution: Pure or punitive?Richard Dagger - 1991 - Criminal Justice Ethics 10 (2):29-39.
Retribution, restitution and revenge.Dennis Klimchuk - 2001 - Law and Philosophy 20 (1):81-101.

View all 7 references / Add more references