Regarding Morning’s Minion’s recent post on the Pope’s address to prison ministers (Here, thanks to ZENIT, is the address): In my view, the key passage quoted by MM should not be understood as rejecting desert-based or retributive theories of punishment. That is, nothing in this passage suggests that “retribution”, and not “a desire to rehabilitate” or “possible pro-social consequences” is not what justifies the state in imposing “punishment” on offenders. This passage speaks to the structuring of punishment, not its justification; it speaks to some of the end-results we should want our punishments to achieve (rehabilitation, restoration, etc.), but it does not deny the traditional Catholic position that the primary purpose of just punishment is retribution, properly understood (i.e., understood not as “vengeance.”)
Now, Morning’s Minion has a different take on the address. But, I think it is a mistake to read this passage as saying that “defense against the criminal”, not retribution, is one of the two “key functions” of the penal system. Given the Church’s longstanding teachings regarding punishment, the Pope’s mention of “safeguarding the common good” would seem best read as embodying the idea that the “common good” is served when the order disturbed by the offense is restored, i.e., by retribution, properly understood.
Retributive punishment theory is not about vengeance. It is, in my view, about (a) protecting defendants from the state by demanding that only morally deserved punishments be imposed and (b) communicating through the criminal-justice system correct moral statements about offenses and victims’ dignity.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In