Classic understandings outline four general motivations to punish: general deterrence of potential wrongdoers, specific deterrence of individual wrongdoers (usually via incapacitation), rehabilitation, and retribution. Recently, empirical psychologists have ascertained that people are mostly motivated by retribution when assigning punishments for criminal wrongdoing. Interestingly, the benefits of retribution are the least obvious of the four outlined motivations. Deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation, if successful, provide the punisher peace of mind by reducing future wrongdoing. Why should people be willing to expend the costs of punishment simply to exact retribution for past wrongs? What does it provide the avenger? This study tests the value that individuals and communities receive from exercising their retributive impulses against criminal wrongdoers. The researchers hypothesize that retribution cures the complex symbolic wounds that wrongdoers inflict on their victims and society. Specifically, being the victim of wrongdoing suggests to the victim that she, and the group of which she is a member, is lower in social status and worth than she had previously thought, because the offender felt entitled to harm her, and because her community did not expend the resources necessary to protect her. By expending resources to catch and punish the offender, the community is refuting that message, and implicitly arguing that in fact she is not deserving of the mistreatment she received. This study tests these propositions by exposing participants to various conditions in which they witness or experience intentional wrongdoing, and in which the wrongdoer is either punished or not. If our hypotheses are correct, then participants should view victims of unpunished crime as lower in worth and social status than they were before the victimization, and victims of punished crime as higher than they were before the punishment. This study illuminates two important social problems. The first concerns imprisonment, which is almost universally acknowledged as expensive, and damaging to inmates, their families, and, sometimes, entire communities. Yet when policy makers suggest alternative punishment regimes that would reduce these problems (like fines, community service, or in-home electronic monitoring), these proposals frequently fail, either by not being adopted of, if adopted, unevenly implemented. The researchers argue that this is so because they do not satisfy the retributive impulse. However, this is not inevitable. If a sanction could be designed that did deliver retribution (such as shaming penalties, or fines coupled with a shorter prison sentence), then society could benefit from the undisputed advantages of punishing their offenders retributively, without incarcerating them for long periods. The second concerns residents of inner city communities. Our thinking suggests there is a strong link between the very high rates of criminal victimization in these communities, and the sense of devaluation by and alienation from the larger society that these residents experience. If policies could be designed that address crime in a way that addresses these complex symbolic consequences of victimization, steps could be taken toward relieving some of the resentment, alienation and sense of helplessness felt by inner city residents.
