Retributive Theory Of Punishment Essay

The theory of punishment as a whole is worth investigating as well. My largest argument against the theory of punishment is that it is not a fair or just operation. The concept of punishment is a way to intentionally harm people. This is not a just way of making a case right, or making a victim heal from any crime they may have been a part of. The victim is not compensated for the damage or harm caused to them. Punishment, in the retributive theory will really only do good in that it deters people from committing crime because they are scared of the punishment- but this simply does not work as well as it should. The restitution theory does not address the issue of who is entitled to cause harm to others, or punish said criminals. Consequentialists argue that punishing someone for their wrongdoings will ensure that they are less likely to commit this act again, but

Another way that some argue against pure restitution is to say that is does not have an acceptable implication that punishment does have. Pure restitution lacks implications that are backed with punishment. Additionally, it is argued that pure restitution has an unacceptable implication that punishment also shares. Some say that pure restitution is too individualistic. It is also argued that some harm is beyond repair, and restitution will not solve or make these issues better, and the theory of pure restitution allows us to do nothing at all to the offender. A very controversial issue here is the question of murder. A pure Restitution theory will answer this argument in 3 ways: The murderer still owes a large debt as a result of the harm they caused to the victim and secondary victims, Transferability, substitutability, and pricing. Also, if there is a case with no victim, then paternalistic laws and moralistic laws. What about the very rich offenders? The restitution