Deterrence vs Retribution
Deterrence and retribution are two legal concepts that are often confused with each other, but they have distinct differences. Deterrence refers to the prevention or discouragement of someone from committing a wrongful act, while retribution involves inflicting pain on someone with an intentional motive behind it. This article aims to clarify the differences between deterrence and retribution in more detail.
What is Deterrence?
Deterrence serves as a warning or discouragement for someone not to commit a wrongful act. It cautions the individual who has made a mistake in the past not to repeat the same wrongdoing. Deterrence does not involve sadism, as the person is simply warned about the consequences of their actions and the potential punishment they could receive. It also serves as a lesson to others, as witnessing the consequences of someone’s wrongdoing can deter others from committing similar acts.
What is Retribution?
Retribution, on the other hand, involves causing pain to someone with an intentional motive behind the action. The person who inflicts the pain does so as part of sadism, meaning they derive pleasure from the suffering of others. Retribution is often seen as a way to get even with the offender and can be considered an act of revenge in some cultures. It is important to note that retribution affects the victim, who may sometimes be dead, and not necessarily the family members of the deceased victim.
Key Takeaways
- Deterrence prevents or discourages someone from committing a wrongful act, while retribution involves inflicting pain with intention.
- Deterrence serves as a warning and does not involve sadism, whereas retribution is often driven by sadistic motives.
- Retribution can be seen as a form of revenge, while deterrence is more focused on prevention and caution.
