Reparation and Retribution: Are They Reconcilable?
Reparation and Retribution: Are They Reconcilable?
复制标题
赔偿与报应：它们可以调和吗？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1994
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Lucia Zedner
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lucia Zedner
刑事司法的近代史包含了一个明显的反常现象：报复性和补偿性司法模式同时复兴。本文将探讨这两种模式的起源和相互竞争的主张，它们的命运是如何重合的，以及它们带来了什么后果。这一领域的许多著述都觉得有必要支持其中一种观点。其中一些文章读起来就像传教小册子，其传教目的往往会阻碍缜密的分析。然而，最有可能引发启发性辩论的地方是，竞争对手已经开始相互争斗，以揭露对方模式的不足或不可取之处。然而，结果是立场变得两极分化了。报复性正义和补偿性正义被视为二律背反，它们的主张彼此对立，它们的目标必然是冲突的。最激进的作家提出了一种重大的范式转变，在这种转变中，赔偿将优先于惩罚，成为刑事司法的目标。从相反的阵营来看，报应主义的支持者通常认为赔偿只是惩罚主要目的的附带因素。根据后一种观点，赔偿在刑事司法系统中的地位符合实际目的，但在概念上是反常的。最近，那些质疑这种二分法在刑罚理论中的有用性的人，提出了一些受欢迎的尝试，以弥合赔偿和报复主义之间传统上存在的差距
The recent history of criminal justice contains an apparent anomaly: the simultaneous renaissance of retributive and reparative models of justice. This article will explore the genesis and competing claims of these two models, how it is that their fortunes have coincided, and with what consequences. Many writing in this field have felt driven to champion the claims of one or the other.’ Some of these writings read like missionary tracts whose proselytising purposes tend to obstruct measured analysis. Yet the greatest possibilities for illuminative debate have arisen where rival champions have entered into battle with one another to expose the inadequacies or undesirability of the other’s model.* The consequence, however, is that positions have become polarised. Retributive and reparative justice are posed as antinomies whose claims rival one another and whose goals must be in conflict. The most radical writers propose a major paradigm shift in which reparation would take priority over punishment as the goal of the criminal justice ~ y s t e m . ~ From the opposing camp, adherents of retributivism generally argue that reparation is merely incidental to the main purpose of punishment. According to this latter view, the place of reparation within the criminal justice system serves pragmatic purposes but is conceptually anomalous. More recently, welcome attempts to bridge the gap traditionally posed between reparation and retributivism have been mooted by those who question the usefulness of this dichotomised approach to penal theory .4