Criminal Justice: Retributive Punishment And Vengeance

This paper describes two aspects of criminal justice; Retributive punishment and vengeance. It takes a position on the important one between the forms of punishment. It further highlights the issue of money devotion when it comes to punishment and rehabilitation. The arguments are put in line with that of Kleinig’s discussion in re-entry.
Question one. Retributive punishment argues that the act of punishing should be imposed for crimes committed in the past. The same should be in line with the nature of the crime committed. The implication is that the magnitude of the punishment should reflect the seriousness of the crime. Retributive does not mean vengeance. There has always been confusion between the two. Certain people do take retribution to have the same meaning as revenge, which in the context is not true. Critics in their arguments have developed a notion that retribution is nothing more than vengeance (Kleinig). It should however, be noted that there is a clear line of difference between the two as outlined by Nozick. He puts the distinction in a very clear meaning. Retribution is basically carried out for the purpose of a wrong while revenge or rather vengeance is conducted for an injury or harm. …show more content…
It is evident that the latter sets a limit for the severity of punishment in accordance with the seriousness of the wrong. The former on the other hand does not set limit as to the extent. In this context, vengeance could be taken as personal whereas retribution is conducted by a person who has no personal ties with the victim. Nozick asserts that vengeance inculcates a particular emotional tone and pleasure in the suffering of the