A Closer Look at an Eye for an Eye: Laypersons’ Punishment Decisions Are Primarily Driven by Retributive Motives

Abstract

According to recent research on laypersons' punitive attitudes people's sentencing decisions are primarily driven by a desire for retribution. The research designed to test this notion, however, can be criticized for suffering from several limitations. Three online-based studies were conducted with samples from Western Europe with the aim of replicating the findings of Carlsmith (J Exp Soc Psychol 42:437-451, 2006) in which participants' punishment motives were inferred from their behavior in a process tracing task. In the present research, this approach was adopted and modified in order to provide a more conservative test for the notion that people mainly care about retribution. Although these modifications strongly influenced the overall pattern of results, retribution still was the most important punishment motive in all three studies.

Are ‘Optimistic’ Theories of Criminal Justice Psychologically Feasible? The Probative Case of Civic Republicanism

“…Our review of the extant psychological evidence thus strongly militates against the view that we have a brutely retributive Realpsychologie. And yet despite the encouraging tenor of these results, there is real and persisting evidence across a broad range of studies that people are susceptible, both in theory and in practice, to purely retributive impulses (Aharoni and Fridlund 2012;Carpenter et al 2001;Crockett et al 2014;Cullen et al 2000;Hartnagel and Templeton 2012;Hough et al 1998;Keller et al 2010;Nadelhoffer et al 2013). We do not want to underestimate how strong and persistent these impulses may be.…”

Moral Psychology as Accountability

“…However, people's actual condemnatory behavior is insensitive to potential deterrence benefits, a robust finding that is fatal to the deterrence theory (Baron, Gowda, and Kunreuther 1993;Baron and Ritov 1993;Darley, Carlsmith, and Robinson 2000;Sunstein, Schkade, and Kahneman 2000;Carlsmith, Darley, and Robinson 2002;Carlsmith 2006;Carlsmith 2008;Carlsmith and Sood 2009;Keller et al 2010). In most studies testing the deterrence theory, subjects are told about a crime and are asked to make a judgment regarding how severely the perpetrator of that crime should be punished.…”

Capital? child rape : does public opinion support the use of the death penalty on child rapists?

“…Retributive reasoning considers the past, namely the crime committed, in order to satisfy the justification for punishment (Bronsteen, 2009;Keijser, et al, 2002;Keller et al, 2010). Retributivists consider punishment as an end, opposing utilitarians who view punishment as a means to an end (Cotton, 2000;Skinner, 2012).…”

“…Retribution is also rooted in morality and does not necessarily concern itself with the impact of punishment on offender or society (Bronsteen, 2009). Instead, punishment is justified in order to right a wrong and reset the moral balance in the community (Carlsmith, 2006;Keller et al, 2010;Skinner, 2012). When an offender commits a crime, he or she disrupts the balance in society by tipping the universe in his or her own favor at the cost of the victim's, as a result moral balance must be restored not only to the victim but to the community (Keijser, et al, 2002).…”

“…In stark contrast to retribution, utilitarianism is future oriented, considering only the result of punishment and how it will affect the punished and the community as a unit (Bronsteen, 2009;Keijser et al, 2002;Keller et al, 2010). For a utilitarian, punishment must serve as a means to an end unlike a retributivist who would consider punishment an end in and of itself (Cotton, 2000;Skinner, 2012).…”