<\/p>
In a recent First Things <\/em> review, Gilbert Meilander summarized Oliver O\u2019Donovan\u2019s theory of punishment as follows: \u201canything called punishment must be \u2018backward-looking\u2019 and hence, in some sense, retributive. But he is not persuaded by any account of retribution that things of it as a simple exchange \u2013 in which the offender receives something rather like the wrong he inflicted. Instead, O\u2019Donovan suggests that we should think of punishment as attributive rather than retributive. What the offender gets back \u2018in return\u2019 is precisely society\u2019s judgment of himself as an offender \u2013 not an \u2018echo\u2019 but an \u2018answer.\u2019 He hears the truth about himself.\u201d <\/p>\n Intriguing thoughts. I wonder, though, how the \u201canswer\u201d v. \u201cecho\u201d idea squares with the lex talionis, and also how O\u2019Donovan\u2019s views on the absence of any victim interest in punishment squares with the Torah\u2019s emphasis on restitution (perhaps O\u2019Donovan\u2019s discussion is limited to crimes, and doesn\u2019t cover torts). Guess I\u2019ll have to read the book. <\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In a recent First Things review, Gilbert Meilander summarized Oliver O\u2019Donovan\u2019s theory of punishment as follows: \u201canything called punishment must be \u2018backward-looking\u2019 and hence, in some sense, retributive. But he is not persuaded by any account of retribution that things of it as a simple exchange \u2013 in which the offender receives something rather like […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1855","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"yoast_head":"\n
He adds, \u201cwhereas theories of punishment normally seek to benefit the society at large (by deterrence), the offender (by remediation), and the victim (by retribution), a Christian political ethic leaves no place for the thought that one purpose of punishment is to benefit the victim. God himself has taken the side and place of victims, and \u2013 though government as God\u2019s servant must defend the right of victims \u2013 no private act of vengeance is needed or permitted. Hence, \u2018it is a measure of the deep de-Christianization of our times that it is once again possible to speak in public of the victim\u2019s interest in punishment.\u2019\u201d <\/p>\n