My first thought goes to the religious angle. John is an Evangelical (and reasonably conservative) Christian. As such, it is worth noting that his attitude toward retribution as justice is – if I read him right (which is often hard for me to do because his communication style is often very… “poetic”, and sometimes I find him hard to pin down) – a negative one. If I do read him right then I would want to keep that in my pocket for later discussions. I would like to show evidence that non-retributivism is not a “secular liberal” viewpoint – and such attitudes and arguments from conservative Christians serve as good evidence for that point.

This is especially important in discussions of doctrines of Hell. Most defenses of traditional notions of Hell rely on the notion that God is Just and that his Justice is a retributive one, though that latter point is normally obscured as much as possible from the defense itself if not from the consciousness of the person presenting it.

As discussed before, one’s theory of what properly constitutes justice should inform one’s view on whether or how retribution can serve the cause of or even be considered as justice. In Hobbins’ case, his objection to retribution doesn’t seem to derive from a theory of justice quite so much as it does from a theory of Scripture, but I’ll take what I can get here. My contention is that upon reflection, no theoretical system of justice that reflective, modern thinkers would find worthy of the name allows for the derivation of an important role for retribution – and certainly none would allow for retribution to be defined as justice.

Hobbins mentions the potential role of retribution in bringing “closure” for family victims of “Capital” crimes in terms suggestive of a Trojan horse. Whether or not that is its intended goal, it is an interesting puzzle. Should we take a family victim’s self-analysis as sufficient reason to consider that retribution has a restorative role in bringing closure? I don’t know – I’m skeptical on this – but more importantly, even if we do acknowledge that role, we are not advocating retribution qua retribution, but rather on the theory that it plays a restitutional role (one that could not possibly apply to arguments on the traditional doctrines of hell, for instance).

I think, whether Hobbins has also considered the question in terms of ethical theories of justice or not, he and I would agree that real justice is essentially preservative, preventative and restorative in nature. In other words, a just effort is one that seeks to preserve what is right, prevent wrong from happening, and to restore the right when a wrong has been done – all while avoiding greater wrongs.

Where I believe we differ a tad is on the political side of the question. I quote:

On the other hand, the fact that redistributive justice – which those same people usually affirm – is a type of retributive justice is almost universally overlooked. You know, progressive taxation, affirmative action, things like that. The feeling seems to be that redistributive justice cannot be a form of retributive justice.

I find this statement extremely revealing of a difference in perspective between advocates and detractors of what Hobbins calls “redistributive” justice.

In fairness to his view, there is a contingent among advocates of progressive taxation or affirmative action that do hold and argue for a retributive role for both – especially for affirmative action, when you consider the “reparations” movement and ’60′s radicalism.

In fairness to the rest of us and myself, it is neither necessary nor particularly common to advocate progressivism with the motive of retribution. In fact, I view progressive taxation exclusively in terms of preservative justice – maintaining a right economic system by avoiding the systematic or institutional transfer of un-earned riches into the hands of the wealthy and out of the reach of the nation that helped produce them and needs them to continue to live and function.

That isn’t to say that none of my political or economic opinions have room for punitive measures against wealthy abusers, or that my temperament doesn’t sometimes allow me retributive feelings against the same. But I don’t feel that wealth is itself an abuse and I am capitalist enough that I salute the industry of those who have achieved it. It is admiration that figures into my view of those wealthy, not retribution. And it is preservation that wholly informs my support for progressivism.

That this conservative sees progressivism as a form of retribution explains why he would take a dim view of progressivism. And it shows that there is a real communication breakdown between the progressive and conservative sides.

In any case – I’m glad to share with Hobbins a skepticism about enthusiasm for retribution. Human nature is such that the desire for it is – as Jesus said of the poor – always going to be with us. Research shows that the desire to punish wrong-doers is a strong psychological pre-disposition in humans, and suggests an evolutionary explanation for why this is so. Experience teaches us that most of us will justify those desires and the expressions of them by looking at them as elements of a worthwhile cause, such as justice.

We won’t rid ourselves of the desire to return ill for ill. But, we can reason better about that desire. We can recognize it as an emotion – even as a legitimate emotion. At the same time, we can recognize that it does not fit a properly understood theory of justice. We can recognize that indulging that emotion, in many cases, can be contrary to justice and contrary to a well-ordered society.

So, if any progressives out there advocate “redistributive” justice (for lack of a better word) out of a visceral desire for retribution as Hobbins perceives, it’s worth taking a second look at your goals and priorities. If advocates of the death penalty have retaliation mixed in amongst your justifications for it, it’s worth revisiting the role emotion plays in your theory of justice. And, if you are defending a traditional notion of Hell on the basis that God is “Just”, it’s worth spending some time figuring out what “justice” is, and whether the quintessentially human desire for revenge is really properly called by that name.

Read full post, see embedded content, and comment here!
Posted in: Justice, People, Philosophy, Religion
Post tags: retribution

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh