ABSTRACT
Just Desserts ......................................................................................... 398 11.7 Retaliation ............................................................................................ 403 11.8 Conclusions.......................................................................................... 405 References ...................................................................................................... 406
When people commit some sort of harmful act against others, they can usually expect their victims to retaliate against them, although what this might be will vary in each case. In some, like may be visited on those who commit the original harmful act; in others, the response may vastly exceed what was originally done; in others still, there may be only the mildest of rebukes. When harms become classifiable as crimes, however, the position changes somewhat. The state, through its criminal justice system, will make a response to the harm-the crime-on behalf of the victim. This is really as far as the principle of retaliation is then allowed to proceed here. This is because what then happens is that the punishment for the crime will be imposed according to a range of aims and objectives that essentially preclude the arbitrary, unspecific, and unpredictable nature of retaliation. In this
chapter, we will be examining one such aim and objective: retribution. What I want to do is provide, first, an overview of what this principle entails; second, an examination of its historical development in modern society and its reformulation in the post-1970s period into what is known as “desserts”; third, an examination of how an array of penal sanctions variously fit or do not fit this concept; fourth, an examination of the main arguments both for and against retribution; and fifth, returning to the subject of retaliation, an examination of the particular circumstances in which we can still find this taking place outside of the formal justice system and the reasons for this.
