ssary to take the place of private vengeance. This justification is related to the social contract, since it views the justice system as necessary for keeping peace in society. If not for the sanctions of the justice system, victims and their families would feel it necessary to exact their own vengeance on the perpetrator. Societal vengeance may even include executing the criminal for the most serious of crimes. Thus, while the killing of a criminal by the victim or his family may be evil, the killing of a criminal by the state is just (as long as the proper guidelines are followed) (Pollock-Byrne, 1989, p. 130).
A third justification for retributive justice is a religious, albeit historic, one: only through suffering can the criminal atone for his criminal acts and attain salvation. Under this rationale, not only may society punish a criminal, it has a moral obligation to do so; it is obliged to afford the criminal every opportunity to save himself. This rationale has also been described as rebalancing societal relationships which have been knocked out of balance by the criminal act (Pollock-Byrne, 1989, p. 130).
A more modern justification for retributive justice is that of "just deserts:" the criminal should be punished because he or she committed an act that is injurious and prohibited by the law. Thus, he or she deserves to be punished. This rationale is offered to justify the fairness of retributive justice, since a person is only punished when he or she deserves it and is punished only according to the degree he or she deserves (LaFave & Scott, 1986, p. 26).
The other aspect of punitive reaction is deterrence. Punishment based upon deterrence is aimed at deterring similar acts by either the convicted person or others in the future. This sort of punishment focuses upon the criminal and other individuals who might decide to commit a similar act. Deterrence has often been advocated as a more efficient basis for punishment t...