Why We Punish in the Name of Justice: Just Desert versus Value Restoration and the Role of Social Identity

Authors: Wenzel, Michael; Thielmann, Ines

Source: Social Justice Research, Volume 19, Number 4, December 2006 , pp. 450-470(21)

Publisher: Springer

Buy & download fulltext article:

Price: $47.00 plus tax (Refund Policy)

Abstract:

Two different notions of justice might motivate people to demand punishment of an offender. The offense could be seen as lowering the victim's and community's status/power position relative to the offender, requiring a degradation of the offender to restore a moral balance (just desert). Or, the offense could be seen as questioning community values, requiring a reaffirmation of those values through social consensus (value restoration). Two studies referring to tax evasion and social welfare fraud yielded supportive evidence. Just desert was related to traditional punishment, especially when participants did not identify with a relevant inclusive community (Australians). Value restoration was related to alternative (restorative) punishment, especially when community values were regarded as diverse and requiring consensualization. It tended to be related to traditional punishment when community values were regarded as clear and consensual.

Keywords: retributive justice; just desert; punishment; restorative justice; social identity; status; power; values

Document Type: Research article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-006-0028-2

Affiliations: 1: Email: Michael.Wenzel@flinders.edu.au

Publication date: 2006-12-01