Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Retributive Justice

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy

  • 40 Accesses

Introduction

“Retribution” has its roots in the Latin word retribuere, a verb that is composed of the prefix re-, “to return,” and tribuere, “to divide among tribes.” Taken together, retribuere means roughly “to pay in return” (Fassin 2018, p. 48). In modern times, “retribution” and especially “retributive justice” are, at least within academic circles, associated almost exclusively with retributivism and retributive theories of punishment (see, e.g., Walen 2020).

There have been many different kinds of theories for the justification of punishment that either self-identify or are at least regarded by others as offering a “retributive” theory of punishment (see, e.g., Cottingham 1979 and Walker 1999). The consensus in recent years is that a “retributive theory” is one that justifies punishment in terms of the desert of the wrongdoer (Berman 2011, p. 437). Many trace the intellectual roots of such a retributive theory back to Kant (e.g., Murphy 1973; Honderich 1984), though it is...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alexander L (2018) Retributive justice. In: Olsaretti S (ed) The Oxford handbook of distributive justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 177–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander L, Ferzan K (2009) Crime and culpability. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander L, Ferzan K (2018) Reflections on crime and culpability. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth A, Von Hirsch A (2005) Proportionate sentencing: exploring the principles. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman M (2008) Punishment and justification. Ethics 118(2):258–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman M (2011) Two kinds of retributivism. In: Duff RA, Green S (eds) Philosophical foundations of criminal law. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 433–457

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Berman M (2013) Rehabilitating retributivism. Law Philos 32(1):83–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman M (2016) Modest retributivism. In: Ferzan K, Morse S (eds) Legal, moral, and metaphysical truths. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 34–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Boonin D (2008) The problem of punishment. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brownlee K (2011) The offender’s part in the dialogue. In: Cruft R, Kramer M, Reiff M (eds) Crime, punishment, & responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 54–67

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Caruso G (2020) Justice without retribution: an epistemic argument against retributive criminal punishment. Neuroethics 13(1):13–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caruso G, Pereboom D, Shaw E (eds) (2019) Free will skepticism in law and society: challenging retributive justice. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiao V (2018) Criminal law in the age of the administrative state. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cottingham J (1979) Varieties of retribution. Philos Q 29(116):238–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dagger R (1993) Playing fair with punishment. Ethics 103:473–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dagger R (2008) Punishment as fair pay. Res Publica 14(4):259–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dagger R (2018) Playing fair: political obligation and the problems of punishment. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dolinko D (1997) Retributivism, consequentialism, and the intrinsic goodness of punishment. Law Philos 16(5):507–528

    Google Scholar 

  • Duff RA (2001) Punishment, communication, and community. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Duff RA (2008) The incompleteness of ‘punishment as fair play’: a response to dagger. Res Publica 14(4):277–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duff RA (2011) Inresponse. In: Cruft R, Kramer M, Reiff M (eds) Crime, punishment, & responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 251–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Duff RA (2018) The realm of criminal law. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ewing B (2018) Recent work on punishment and criminogenic disadvantage. Law Philos 37(91):29–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fassin D (2018) The will to punish. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg J (1965) The expressive function of punishment. Monist 49(3):397–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnis J (1999) Retribution: punishment’s formative aim. Am J Jurisprud 44:91–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green S (2011) Just deserts in unjust societies: a case-specific approach. In: Duff RA, Green S (eds) Philosophical foundations of criminal law. Oxford Universty Press, New York, pp 352–376

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hanna N (2014) Retributivism revisited. Philos Stud 167:473–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart HLA (2008) Punishment and responsibility, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Honderich T (1984) Punishment Pelican Books, Middlesex

    Google Scholar 

  • Husak D (1992) Why punish the deserving? Noûs 26(4):447–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz L (2018) Criminal law: Political or moral? defending a complementary conception of criminal law in the age of the administrative state. Jerusalem Rev Legal Stud 17(91):111–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly E (2018) The limits of blame. Harvard University Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolber A (2018) Punishment and moral risk. Univ Illinois Law Rev 2:487–532. https://illinoislawrev.web.illinois.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Kolber.pdf

  • Kolber A (2019) The subjectivist critique of proportionality. In: Alexander L, Ferzan K (eds) The Palgrave handbook of applied ethics and the criminal law. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp 571–595

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kolber A (2020) The time-frame challenge to retributivism. In: Tonry M (ed) Of one-eyed and Tothless Miscreants. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 183–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee AYK (2017) Defending a communicative theory of punishment: the relationship between hard treatment and amends. Oxf J Leg Stud 37(1):217–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippke R (2014) Some surprising implications of negative retributivism. J Appl Philos 31(1):49–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippke R (2019) The nature of retributive justice and its demands on the state. Law Philos 38:53–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markel D (2011) What might retributive justice be? An argument for the confrontational conception of retributivism. In: White M (ed) Retributivism: essays on theory and policy. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 49–71

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Matravers M (2000) Justice and punishment: the rationale of Coercion. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Matravers M (2011) Duff on hard treatment. In: Cruft R, Kramer M, Reiff M (eds) Crime, punishment, & responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 68–83

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moore M (1997) Placing blame. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore M (2016) Responses and appreciations. In: Ferzan K, Morse S (eds) Legal, moral, and metaphysical truths. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 343–427

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moraro P (2020) Review of Richard Dagger, playing fair: political obligation and the problems of punishment. Crim Law Philos 14(1):141–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris H (1968) Persons and punishment. Monist 52(4):475–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy J (1973) Marxism and retribution. Philos Public Aff 2(3):217–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy J (2011a) Some second thoughts on retributivism. In: White M (ed) Retributivism: essays on theory and policy. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 93–106

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy J (2011b) Repentance, mercy, and communicative punishment. In: Cruft R, Kramer M, Reiff M (eds) Crime, punishment, & responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 27–36

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roebuck G, Wood D (2011) A retributive argument against punishment. Crim Law Philos 5(1):73–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheffler S (2000) Justice and desert in liberal theory. Calif Law Rev 88:965–989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sher G (1987) Desert. Princeton University Press, New Jersey

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sigler M (2018) Humility, not doubt: a reply to Adam Kolber. Univ Illinois Law Rev 158–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tadros V (2011) The ends of harm. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tasioulas J (2003) Mercy. Proc Aristot Soc 103(1):101–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tasioulas J (2006) Punishment and repentance. Philosophy 81(316):279–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tasioulas J (2010) Justice and punishment. In: Skorupski J (ed) The Routledge companion to ethics. Routledge, London & New York, pp 680–691

    Google Scholar 

  • Tasioulas J (2011) Where is the love? The topography of mercy. In: Cruft R, Kramer M, Reiff M (eds) Crime, punishment, & responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 37–53

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tonry M (ed) (2019) Of one-eyed and toothless miscreants. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunick M (1996) Is Kant a retributivist? Hist Polit Thought 17(1):60–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron J (1992) Lex Talionis. Ariz Law Rev 34:25–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Walen A (2020) Retributive justice. In Zalta E (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Fall 2020 edn. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/justice-retributive/

  • Walker N (1999) Even more varieties of retribution. Philosophy 74:595–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yankah E (2020) Punishing them all: how criminal justice should account for mass incarceration. Res Philosophica 97(2):185–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaibert L (2006) Punishment and retribution. Routledge, London & New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaibert L (2018) Rethinking punishment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

    Ambrose Y. K. Lee

Authors
  1. Ambrose Y. K. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ambrose Y. K. Lee .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for International and Comparative Law, University of Baltimore School of Law, Baltimore, USA

    Mortimer Sellers

  2. Department of Legal Theory, International and European Law, University of Salzburg, Austria, Salzburg, Austria

    Stephan Kirste

Section Editor information

  1. Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

    John Tasioulas Ph.D

  2. Department of Social Sciences and Economics, Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy, Salzburg University, Salzburg, Austria

    Kristin Albrecht

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature B.V.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Lee, A.Y.K. (2022). Retributive Justice. In: Sellers, M., Kirste, S. (eds) Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6730-0_909-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6730-0_909-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6730-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6730-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Law and CriminologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation