retributivism (ri-trib-y[schwa]-t[schwa]-viz-[schwa]m). The legal theory by which criminal punishment is justified, as long as the offender is morally accountable, regardless of whether deterrence or other good consequences would result. • According to retributivism, a criminal is thought to have a debt to pay to society, which is paid by punishment. The punishment is also sometimes said to be society’s act of paying back the criminal for the wrong done. Opponents of retributivism sometimes refer to it as “vindictive theory.” Cf. hedonistic utilitarianism under UTILITARIANISM; UTILITARIAN-DETERRENCE THEORY Y. [Cases: Sentencing and Punishment 44.]
maximalist retributivism. The classical form of retributivism, espoused by scholars such as Immanuel Kant, under which it is argued that society has a duty, not just a right, to punish a criminal who is guilty and culpable, that is, someone who has no justification or excuse for the illegal act.
minimalist retributivism. The more contemporary form of retributivism, which maintains that no one should be punished in the absence of guilt and culpability (that is, unless punishment is deserved), and that a judge may absolve the offender from punishment, wholly or partially, when doing so would further societal goals such as rehabilitation or deterrence.
双语律师李黎，国际知名法学院法律专业，擅长翻译各类与
消费者金融诉讼相关的法律文件。
