Skip to main content
Log in

An attributional examination of retributive versus utilitarian philosophies of punishment

  • Published:
Social Justice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two basic goals of punishment—retribution and utility—and the means to those goals, including isolation, rehabilitation, and the creation of fear, were first examined. The objectives of punishment were then related to attributions regarding the cause of a transgression. It was documented that punishment goals are mediated by the expectancies and affects that are elicited by causal beliefs. It also was argued that the purposes of punishment are more state-like than trait-like, for they change as a function of the reason for a transgression. Data from three laboratory experiments, as well as a field study regarding reactions to O. J. Simpson for his alleged crimes, were presented in support of the above beliefs. In addition, the morality of retribution versus utilitarianism was discussed in the context of the caning of Michael Fay in Singapore. It is suggested that rehabilitation may be the most moral of the punishment means.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bailey, W. C., and Peterson, R. D. (1994). Murder, capital punishment, and deterrence: A review of the evidence and an examination of police killings.J. Soc. Issues 50: 53–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. S. (1978). Causal attributions in expert parole decisions.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 36: 1501–1511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. S., and Payne, J. W. (1976). The psychology of the parole decision process: A joint application of attribution theory and information-processing psychology. In Carroll, J. S., and Pavne, J. W. (eds.),Cognition and Social Behavior, Halsted, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darley, J. M., and Zanna, M. P. (1982). Making moral judgments.Am. Sci., 70: 515–521.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ellsworth, P. C., and Gross, S. R. (1994). Hardening of the attitudes: Americans’ views of the death penalty.J. Soc. Issues, 50: 19–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, J. (1970).Doing and Deserving: Essays on the Theory of Responsibility, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fincham, F. D., and Jaspars, J. M. (1980). Attribution of responsibility: From man the scientist to man as lawyer. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 13, Academic Press, New York, pp. 81–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A., and Henderson, M. (1983). Lay theories of delinquency.Eur. J. Soc. Psychol., 13: 107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gert, B. (1988).Morality: A New Justification of the Moral Rules, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Weiner, B., and Zucker, G. S. (1997). An attributional analysis of punishment goals and public reactions to O. J. Simpson.Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 23: 331–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, H. A., and Honoré, A. M. (1959).Causation in the Law, Clarendon Press, Oxford, U.K.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, J. (1971).Sentencing as a Human Process, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, L. (1987).Bad Acts and Guilty Minds, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1964).Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (Trans. Lewis W. Beck).

  • McFatter, R. (1978). Sentencing strategies and justice: Effects of punishment philosophy on sentencing decisions.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 36: 1490–1500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFatter, R. (1982). Purposes of punishment: Effects of utilities of criminal sanction on perceived appropriateness.J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 67: 255–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. (1987). The moral worth of retribution. In Schoeman, F. (ed.),Responsibility, Character, and the Emotions. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 179–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, S. J. (1978). Crazy behavior, morals and science: An analysis of mental healthy law.Southern California Law Rev. 51: 527–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, S. J. (1985). Excusing the crazy: The insanity defense reconsidered.Southern California Law Rev. 58: 777–837.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J. C., and Coleman, J. L. (1990).Philosophy of Law: An Introduction to Jurisprudence, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1993).Understanding Child Abuse and Neglect, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1955). Concepts of rules.Philos. Rev. 64: 4–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reyna, C., and Weiner, B. (1997). Punishment goals in achievement and criminal domains. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, P., and Darley, J. (1995).Justice, Liability, and Blame, Westview, Boulder, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, D. G. (1996, July 11). Florida’s tough teen crime stance may be wrong.Los Angeles Times, pp. A1, A14.

  • Schlenker, B., Britt, T., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., and Doherty, K. (1994). The triangle model of responsibility.Psychol. Rev. 101: 632–652.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sesser, S. (1993).The Lands of Charm and Cruelty, Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shultz, T. R., Schleifer, M., and Altman, I. (1981). Judgments of causation, responsibility, and punishment in cases of harm-doing.Can. J. Behav. Sci. 13: 238–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Der Haag, E. (1982). Could successful rehabilitation reduce the crime rate?J. Crim. Law Criminol. 73: 1022–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N., and Miller, D. (1980). Social psychological processes underlying attitudes toward legal punishment.Law Psychol. Rev. 14: 565–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B. (1986).An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion, Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B. (1995).Judgments of Responsibility: A Foundation for a Theory of Social Conduct, Guilford, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weiner, B., Graham, S. & Reyna, C. An attributional examination of retributive versus utilitarian philosophies of punishment. Soc Just Res 10, 431–452 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02683293

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02683293

Key words

Navigation