ABSTRACT
Retributive punishment is much easier to distinguish from revenge than is punishment simpliciter. But then it is somewhat hard to see why, or indeed how, it is argued that retributivism is somehow a facade for revenge. One source of confusion between retributivism and revenge is related to a loose set of presumably base or ugly emotions which retributivism allegedly presupposes or nurtures. There are many versions of this confusion. Famous interpretation of retributivism is associated with Immanuel Kant’s much discussed thought experiment concerning a society which is about to dissolve itself, and which faces the question of what to do with its murderers. The very assumption which underlies David Dolinko’s concerns, and which he tends to support with scant appeals to authority, is itself debatable. Retributivism is, perhaps, more accepted amongst philosophers than amongst legal scholars.
