Lewis & Clark Law Review
First Page
1339
Abstract
One of the oldest and most entrenched goals of punishment is retribution, which is the idea that inflicting pain on someone who has committed a wrong is a worthwhile goal, regardless of any other benefits or harms that may result. Retribution has been the justification for increasingly punitive policies in the United States, the effect of which has decimated communities of color, strapped taxpayers with huge associated costs, and increased crime rates. It is difficult to understand why we perpetuate harmful policies based on “just deserts” until we consider that the foundation of these policies is moral outrage—a powerful, automatic, compelling response to witnessing social transgressions. Evidence from evolutionary biology, brain science, psychology, and anthropology has re- vealed the role of moral outrage in promoting social cooperation among early humans as social groups expanded. Moral outrage shares commonalities with other cognitive heuristics, or mental shortcuts that behavioral scientists have identified as leading humans to behave irrationally. While these automatic responses have historically served an adaptive function, they can lead to poor judgment in contemporary society. This Article employs scientific findings and theory from several disciplines to explore the origin and function of moral out- rage, before examining the maladaptive consequences of retributivist objectives in modern times. Ultimately, all evidence suggests that retribution is an an- cient artifact of human evolution only serving to create a foundation for harm- ful policies. As such, retribution should no longer be considered a legitimate punishment goal.
Recommended Citation
Molly J. Walker Wilson,
Retribution as Ancient Artifact and Modern Malady,
24
Lewis & Clark L. Rev.
1339
(2020).
Available at:
https://lawcommons.lclark.edu/lclr/vol24/iss4/6