To answer evil for evil; A philosophical-ethical reflection on the retributionist justification of pain and suffering

Articles in Press

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Assistant Professor of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran.

Abstract

The proponents of the theory of retribution, by emphasizing the basics such as deservingness, blame, and proportionality, they explain and develop a theory of punishment based on the deservingness of the perpetrator; Punishment in this theory is considered a good thing that should be implemented. retribution is correct if it declares the objection of pain and suffering to another - with any motive - as justified and moral, and if it does so the reason for applying punishment makes "answer evil for evil" valuable. Punitive justice pays less attention to the role of unjust processes and situations in the criminal responsibility of the perpetrator of criminal behavior and considers him to be the designer of his life plan and the figure of his goals and hopes, and denies or ignores the role of deterministic social structures in human actions. Also, apart from the difficulty of how to determine what is good and what is bad and the criteria and basis of their demarcation, it is not clear how retributionist consider the types of punishment as the right and appropriate punishment for committing a crime and how punishment can guarantee the fulfillment of the good thing.

Keywords

Criminal Law Doctrines

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 31 December 2024

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics