Analysis Of Forfeiture-Based Retributivism By David Boonin

Forfeiture-based retributivism is a solution to justifying punishment. Forfeiture-based retributivism claims that it is morally permissible to punish an individual who has committed an offence because they have violated another individual’s right to something and there for forfeit the same right or one similar (Boonin p.105). This essay will cover some of the objections that David Boonin presents for forfeiture-based retributivism and why I think his objections do not work The First objection I will cover is the rights without duties objection. Within forfeiture-based retributivism there is an argument called the rights-duties argument, this says that in order to have rights there are duties that we have to perform (Boonin p.107). The rights-duties

This objection says there are certain rights which one cannot be morally forfeited even if a person has violated another individual’s right to the same thing (Boonin p.110). One of Boonin’s examples is that if a judged presiding over a case accepted a bribe there for violating the offender’s rights to a fair trial does the judge lose his right to a fair trial (Boonin p.110). Boonin claim that in the case of the judge that it is morally impermissible revoke her right to a fair trial even if she has done the same to another. Now the obvious reply to Boonin’s objection is that forfeiture-based retributivism does allow for another equal right to be forfeited instead of the original right. Boonin’s response to the reply is if the right an offender has violated is one which he himself cannot forfeit then how can an equal right also be forfeited (Boonin p.111). If we go back to Boonin’s judge example, we see that the judge has violated an offender’s right to a fair trial but that she herself is unable to forfeit that same right. Following the logic of Boonin’s objection any right that could be equal to the right to a fair trial would also be have to be an unforfeited right; the problem is not that it morally impermissible to revoke her right to a fair trial, but that forfeiting that right would cause her other rights to be violated. The point of a trial is to determine if a person is guilty of

Boonin also mentions that those trying to defend forfeiture-based retributivism are not only defending “… claim that it is permissible for the state to punish, but the claim that it is permissible to for the state to have a monopoly on punishment.” And insinuates that if you believe those claim you should reject forfeiture-based retributivism (Boonin p.115) To be honest I do agree that even if for instance someone forfeited their right not to be stabbed that private citizens should be going around trying to stab that person, but even then I don’t think Boonin is right to just reject forfeiture-based retributivism. I think it work because of the monopoly that the state has on punishment even if Boonin wants to claim that just further invalidation; the reason I think it works is because not only do I believe that the state has been given the right to carry out a punishment, but that also people have a right