Introduction
From modern politics to ancient theologies, humans have used retributive justice as a means to solving problems. But does retributive justice actual accomplish anything? In this post, I want to explore these two concepts, the psychology behind the two and suggest a better path forward. In America particularly, we are currently watching our political regime go after both the “enemy within” and political enemies. We are sending National Guard to cities and prosecuting people on questionable charges. Does it really work? Will any of this “Make America Great Again?”
We have tried more police, prisons and punishment. As we will see, it has not made us safer. The path forward comes from addressing the roots of violence – poverty, housing, instability, and hopelessness. Jesus offers us guidance when he challenges the young rich ruler to sell all he has and give to the poor, highlighting the challenge wealth poses to spiritual commitment, which ultimately leads the young man to leave sorrowfully because he values his riches more than following Jesus. We are blessed not when we have more, but when others have enough.
What Is Retributive Justice?
When we focus on punishing offenders in proportion to the severity of their crimes, based on the idea that they deserve to suffer for their wrongdoing. It aims to restore balance in society by ensuring that those who commit crimes face appropriate consequences for their actions, we are talking about retributive justice.
Retributive justice is a long-standing legal concept that “intuitively appealing, the primary alternative, consequentialist theories of punishment that focus on deterrence and incapacitation, seem to confront a deep problem.” With this concept in mind, often based on some sort of religious ideal, a binary is created, good or bad that is rigid and justifies othering the person we consider the criminal, often for going against a social norm. Scholars of this approach note four principles.
The Outcomes and Impact of Retributive Justice
While retributive justice has shaped our laws and social norms for centuries, its outcomes remain hotly debated. Critics argue that focusing on punishment does little to address the underlying causes of crime, such as inequality and lack of opportunity, and may even perpetuate cycles of harm by failing to promote genuine rehabilitation or community healing. Supporters, on the other hand, contend that proportional consequences serve as a deterrent and uphold society’s moral order. This tension invites a deeper examination of not only whether punishment makes us safer, but also how our collective values influence the justice systems we create and sustain.
Let’s explore the question, does punishment make us safer? To address this initially, I want to approach this from a parenting perspective. In older models of parenting where corporal punishment was seen as a means of discipline, it was believed more or less that we could “beat” a child into obedience and compliance. We instead created trauma, fear and shame and forever altered how that child will see themselves. In the behavioral work I did and still do, instead, I look at why a child is not behaving and addressing the problem that way, often with a much healthier outcome for both the child and the family.
In the same way, “punishment” as a means of dealing with a crime is only a temporary solution to the societal ill that created the conditions the crime was committed. Research (see also this study) indicates that harsher punishments do not necessarily lead to a safer society, as they often fail to deter crime effectively. Instead, rehabilitation and positive reinforcement are shown to be more effective in reducing recidivism and promoting long-term behavioral change
Why Humans Are Drawn to Retribution
Humans are drawn to retribution due to an innate desire for justice and the need to restore a sense of balance after being wronged. This psychological response is often fueled by feelings of anger and the belief that punishing the offender can provide emotional relief or closure. Psychologically, this is a complicated study that could take up several pages research. “Individuals think that gaining retaliation will make them feel better and that taking revenge is a way to relieve their emotions.” (See also this article)
Alternative Models: Restorative Justice and Beyond
An alternative to retributive justice is restorative justice. With this approach, the focus is not on retribution, rather repairing the harm caused by criminal behavior through dialogue and accountability among victims, offenders, and the community. It aims to empower victims and encourage offenders to take responsibility for their actions, fostering healing and reducing the likelihood of re-offending. The primary goals are to hold offenders accountable, provide opportunities for victims to heal, and reduce the likelihood of re-offending. Research indicates that restorative justice can lead to lower recidivism rates and higher victim satisfaction.
There are three core elements noted across many sources of restorative justice: encounter, repair and transform.
Shifting the Paradigm
We begin to shift the paradigm when we begin to think differently about our Christian faith. For 1500 years or so, the Christian church has focused on empire building rather than building up genuine committed communities of faith as observed in Acts 2. Instead of focusing on punishment, doctrines and rule, which in some capacities are important, we need to focus on addressing poverty, instability and hopelessness.
We must be like Jesus and faith of Jesus and learn how to foster empathy, healing and progress not as something we do for our community, but as something we are and for our community.
By embracing this deeper sense of communal responsibility, we move away from punitive systems toward practices that genuinely uplift and restore both individuals and society. Building relationships rooted in compassion and mutual understanding enables us not only to respond to harm but also to prevent it, challenging us to reimagine justice as a process of collective transformation. This shift encourages us to cultivate spaces where dignity, support, and hope replace cycles of retribution, laying the foundation for communities that reflect the true heart of justice and faith.
Conclusion
To close, I have looked at the limitations of retributive justice. I have examined how punitive approaches like increased policing and incarceration have not effectively made society safer or addressed the root causes of crime. Drawing on both psychological insights and research, it argues that retribution often perpetuates cycles of harm rather than fostering true healing or rehabilitation. I offer the concept of restorative justice as a more effective alternative, emphasizing dialogue, accountability, and community healing. It calls for a shift in perspective—especially within Christian communities—from punishment and rule enforcement to addressing systemic issues like poverty and instability, fostering empathy, and building supportive, compassionate relationships.
Walking away from this post, I challenge you to consider steps can we take, individually and collectively, to move beyond cycles of punishment and toward practices that promote healing, equity, and restoration.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In