Revenge, Justice, and the Law

More documents

Recommendations

Info

26 THE WAYNE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 50:4 The next assumption is that there is something intrinsically immoral when a crime victim, motivated by hate and revenge, does seek the harshest allowable sentence. But why is that an immoral response? This is the person who has, after all, actually suffered the greatest harm. 97 Moreover, even if the victim is seeking the harshest penalty allowable under the law, she is only asking for a level of punishment which we, as a society, have already judged to be within the parameters of proportionality, 98 and thus, if rendered, would constitute justice. 99 The third, and most basic assumption which seems to underlie the argument that revenge is inherently immoral, is that any desire so grounded in hatred, must be evil, and thus immoral. While I do not question the genuineness of those who share that belief, I do question their assumption that their beliefs should set the moral standard upon which we all should be judged. The desire for revenge, more than simply being an “understandable” reaction to wrong doing, is grounded upon a rational and legitimate set of beliefs : That those who perform good deeds deserve gratitude and kindness; while those who perform evil ones deserve enmity and punishment. Perhaps this sentiment was best captured by the English jurist and historian Sir James Fitzjames Stephens, who, in 1883 wrote: The criminal law thus proceeds upon the principle that it is morally right to hate criminals, and it confirms and justifies that sentiment by inflicting upon criminal punishments which express it. . . . These views are regarded by many persons as being wicked, because it is supposed that we never ought to hate, or wish to be revenged upon, any one. The doctrine that hatred and vengeance are wicked in themselves appears to me to contradict plain facts, and to be unsupported by any arguments deserving of attention. Love and hatred, gratitude for benefits, and the desire of vengeance for injuries, imply each other as much as convex and concave. 100 97. See infra notes 127-156 and accompanying text (recognizing the victim as the wronged party). 98. See supra notes 69-76 ( defining proportionality of punishment to crime). 99. See supra note 48 (discussing proportionality within the definition of justice). 100. 2 SIR JAMES FITZJAMES STEPHENS, A HISTORY OF THE CRIMINAL LAW OF ENGLAND 81-82 (1883) (emphasis added). See also BARTON, supra note 30, at 13 (“[I]t is
2005] VICTIM’S DESIRE FOR VENGEANCE 27 Stephens’s observations also point out a recurring flaw in many commentators’ analyses of the reasons for society’s evolution from revenge to State imposed punishment. As discussed previously, the reasons for this evolution relate not to the inherent immorality of a victim’s desire to revenge a wrongful act, but rather to the great probability that the consequences of acting upon the desire would either result in an injustice, or at least in an endless and increasing cycle of violence. 101 For example, there was nothing immoral about Jacob and his sons wishing to see Dinah’s rapist punished. It was just that by acting upon their desire for revenge, unjust punishments and the possibility of further bloodshed resulted. 102 The Ancient Greeks shared this concern. They feared revenge, and with good reason. As one 20th century historian noted when describing the revenge culture in Ancient Greece, “a single deed of blood provokes an endless series of retaliations: a hideous orgy of revenge... an orgy which no one may escape; for old men and women and children perish, whether one by one, or in a general massacre.” 103 We see these very same fears of revenger justice appearing in the Ancient Greek myths, which often featured a blood feud which resulted in the innocent descendants of those who may have wronged another, being punished for their ancestor’s act. For instance, in the myth of Orestes, the Greek king, Agamemnon, is murdered by his wife, Clytemnestra, for sacrificing their daughter’s life to the Gods. Clytemnestra, in turn, is slain by their son, Orestes, to avenge his father’s death. The cause for this family’s tragedy is traced back to a curse placed upon the descendant’s of Agamemnon’s father’s, Atreus, by his brother Thyestes, because Atreus murdered Thyestes’s children. 104 Similarly, the myth of Medea concerns a princess, Medea, who saves the life of Jason, and enables him to gain the Golden Fleece, thus ensuring Jason great fame and wealth. To achieve these ends for Jason, she betrays questionable whether there is anything wrong with hating an unjust act, or even an unjust person who, on top of the wrongdoing, refuses to make amends and remains defiant and unapologetic.”); Id. at 19 (“[I]f. . . . the emotional tone accompanying most cases of revenge was in fact pleasure in the suffering of those who have harmed and wronged one, it is not so obvious that these cases of revenge would be morally reprehensible on that account.”). 101. See supra notes 11-18 and accompanying text. 102. See supra notes 1- 8 and accompanying text. 103. HUBERT J. TRESTON, POINE: A STUDY IN GREEK BLOOD REVENGE 1 (1923). 104. EDITH HAMILTON, MYTHOLOGY 250-59 (Penguin Books 1969) (1942).
Page 1 and 2: REVENGE, JUSTICE AND LAW: RECOGNIZI
Page 3 and 4: 2005] VICTIM’S DESIRE FOR VENGEAN
Page 25: 2005] VICTIM’S DESIRE FOR VENGEAN

Revenge, Justice, and the Law

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?