Considering the idea of punishment in the modern patterns of social hierarchy, it would be safe to outline that Randy E. Barnett’ was right in his perception of justice and shift from punishment. One of the major characteristics that demonstrate the positive outcome of the idea is the fact that the accepted model of punishment is aimed at the offender’s discipline rather than displaying reparations for the victim. Moreover, Barnett (281) claims the victims to be the ones paying taxes to support confinement institutions. As a result, the idea of taking responsibility for one’s actions in the offender-victim paradigm may be the right decision in terms of tangible justice outcomes.
One of the strongest arguments in terms of Barnett’s model may be the fact of shifting the justice focus towards the victim’s interests. What is meant by that is that the modern system of punishment is aimed at ensuring that the offender is undergoing a form of punishment in order to be no threat to society in the future. Thus, the victim’s experience in the following case is overlooked for the sake of a widespread social purpose.
While such an argument may be beneficial for social patterns, the process itself may be rather ambivalent due to the fact that the guilty have no guarantee of reoffending avoidance. Hence, the idea of “making good the loss” may be of better efficacy for the justice system in the long-term perspective (Barnett 287). Moreover, taking responsibility for an action causing harm to an individual may result in the offender’s better understanding of the scope of crime committed.
Over the decades, the notion of restitution was modified, but the primary description of the concept belonged to Randy E. Barnett. According to Barnett, the notion of restitution stands for the process of an offense committed “by one individual against the rights of another” (Barnett 287). Hence, it is the offender’s primary duty to repay his debt to an individual victim rather than society in general.
However, as Barnett sees it, the notion itself may be regarded from two rather opposing perspectives. On the one hand, restitution may be perceived as punitive, claiming the process to be a supplement to punishment, where the offender, additionally to the imprisonment, makes sure to compensate for the damage caused. The other aspect of restitution, known as “pure,” does not presuppose the idea of punishment whatsoever, placing emphasis on the idea of redemption and mitigating the victim’s struggle (Barnett 288). While the author claims the efficiency of the latter, he also refers to the overall flaws of the system. According to Burgh (194), the major flaw is the fact that punishment inflicts suffering intentionally without making sure that this process always brings the desired outcome. As a result, Barnett believes that the idea of restitution is better because it is aimed at providing compensation for at least the victim of the crime.
Having considered the definition of restitution rather than a full-scale punishment, it may be concluded that the former should be regarded as a future model of effective justice. However, when regarding this process from a global perspective, some people may argue that such a system may not work for society because the idea of punishment was proposed in the first place due to offenders’ refusal to acknowledge their destructive actions. While such an argument may sound reasonable, it should be stated that incarceration systems unwilling to impose suffering as a major principle generally result in lower reoffense rates. Hence, if we consider the process of pure restitution as a means of offender’s mental rehabilitation, the outcomes may be more efficient than punishment in the long run.
Works Cited
Barnett, Randy E. “Restitution: A New Paradigm of Criminal Justice.” Ethics, vol. 87, no. 4, 1977, pp. 279-301.
Burgh, Richard W. “Do the Guilty Deserve Punishment?” The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 79, no. 4, 1982, pp. 193-210.