Retributive Justice


Just Deserts

Injustice often elicits appeals to see some sanctioning reaction in response to rule-breaking; we seek "just deserts", demanding that the offender suffer in proportion to his wrong-doing. Social scientists often distinguish between consequential (i.e., deterrance and recidivism) and retributive (i.e., just deserts) punishment goals/outcomes, and research suggests that desires for punishment are overwhelmingly driven by the need for retribution. However, most justice researchers conceptualize such retribution as an ends in itself, ignoring the specific psychological needs that may underlie desires for punishment, particularly those of the injustice victim. My research in this domain attempts to reveal the goals underlying retribution in an attempt to better understand why and when people (both victims and observers) prefer retribution over alternative means of justice restoration.

 

Publications


Okimoto, T. G. & Wenzel, M. (2009). Punishment as restoration of group and offender values following a transgression: Value consensus through symbolic labelling and offender reform. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(3), 346-367. [LINK] [ABSTRACT]

Okimoto, T. G. & Wenzel, M. (2011). Third-party punishment and symbolic intragroup status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(4), 709-718. [LINK] [ABSTRACT]

Okimoto, T. G. & Wenzel, M. (in press). The other side of perspective-taking: Transgression ambiguity and victims’ revenge against their offender. Social Psychological and Personality Science. [LINK] [ABSTRACT]

 

Recent News


Research Overview

Justice restoration / Conflict management:
         > Retributive justice
         > Restorative justice
         > Compensatory justice
         > Forgiveness and justice
         > The victim's experience of injustice

Biased and unethical decision-making:
         > Gender bias in organizations