http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ideas...ould-be-the-Letter-of-the-Law--201946911.html
Most of us are taught from a young age that revenge is wrong, and itâs better to turn the other cheek. But far from condemning vengeance as something we must learn to overcome, Fordham University law professor Thane Rosenbaum argues in his radical new book, Payback: The Case for Revenge, that the desire to get even is an indelible part of our nature, and that itâs nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, he says, weâd all be better off if society makes a place for revenge in our legal system, accepting it as an integral part of justice. Using examples from history, mythology, popular culture and recent eventsâsuch as the widely-celebrated killing of Osama bin LadenâRosenbaum asks us to âgive revenge a chance.â
Doesnât an eye for an eye leave the whole world blind? Wonât we have a more peaceful society if we abstain from seeking vengeance?
To me, thereâs a greater moral outrage in not taking an eye for an eye, or in taking less than an eye for an eye. Itâs the moral outrage that comes when people feel they can get away with something. Weâve been taught that vengeance is an artifact of our primitive past. But there is no justice unless people feel avenged. Criminals and wrongdoers should be made to pay back what is owed.
If revenge is natural and right, how did we get to the point where society considers it barbaric and primitive?
Thereâs a fear of revenge run amok, like when we hear of the Hatfields and the McCoys, where thereâs been so much tit for tat and doubling down on tit for tat that nobody knows how to stop it. But I think a blood feud is different from vengeance, because vengeance by definition is proportionate.
Your book focuses mainly on changing our legal system, and you write that courts need to provide âpermissible, legal pathwaysâ for vengeance. What would that look like in practice?
In the United States, our legal system says, âDonât take anything personally. You are merely a witness on behalf of the state.â It doesnât allow victims to speak honestly about the harms committed against them. And it doesnât let them have the necessary biological, psychological and moral imperative of an emotional release. Victims should be part of the suit, rather than calling it People vs. Jones. Victims should be participating in the prosecution, they should be able to speakâand not just at the sentencing hearing, they should speak during the part of the trial that deals with guilt itself.
I also raise the possibility of a victim veto, where if the state enters into a plea bargain that is insufficient in the mind of the victim or the victimâs family, they can say, âJudge, I canât live with that. This person killed my daughter. I canât possibly go home and think this is appropriate,â and prevent the bargain from taking place.
Why isnât it enough to give victims or their families a chance to speak before a convicted criminal is sentenced, as we sometimes do today? Doesnât including them in the part of the trial meant to determine guilt risk prejudicing the jury against a defendant who is presumed innocent?
The burden is still on the state and the victim to get the right person. And we already do engage victims as witnesses in the guilt phase. Itâs not as if they arenât a part of the process, itâs just that we donât let them speak to the jury, and they become voiceless. But I want the victim involved. Be a face we can see!
A Thane Rosenbaum courtroom is a much messier courtroomâitâs emotionally open. Itâs not as clipped and canned and sanitized. It gives people an opportunity to express their grief, their loss, to speak to their pain. We donât do that now. What Iâm talking about is a much more tearful expression of justice. Itâs much more honest; itâs therapeutic. Thereâs something very powerful in standing before your community and speaking to your loss.
That might not be consistent with provisions in the Bill of Rights that protect the accused, like the Sixth Amendmentâs requirement that a jury be impartial, and that a defendant be allowed to cross-examine anyone who testifies against him. Would you amend the Constitution to protect victimsâ rights as well?
Our Bill of Rights is set up to address the needs of the accused, but weâve completely renounced any obligation to worry about victimsâ rights. The Fourth, Fifth, and, most especially, Sixth Amendments are completely designed to protect the accused. No such reciprocal amendment protects victims, and any such amendment might conflict to some degree with those other three. But what if there were a Sixth Amendment subsection which read, âNotwithstanding all the rights just enumerated in favor of the accused, crime victims also have the right to confront witnesses, to participate in trial proceedings, to have their own counsel representing them at criminal trials, to participate in both the guilt and sentencing phases of criminal trials, and to exercise a victim veto.â You want to truly put an end to vigilante justice? The above language would probably go a long way toward accomplishing it.
You write a lot about murder and its impact on victimsâ families. Do you believe the death penalty is an appropriate way to help survivors feel avenged? What sorts of punishments are fair for the most heinous crimes?
I only feel strongly about the death penalty when weâre talking about the worst of the worst. Iâm not saying the death penalty or life in prison without parole can ever redress the harms that were committed. But I do know that to under-punish, to shortchange, is a kind of moral violation that we should find intolerable. I write about the woman in Iran who was blinded by a classmate, with acid thrown in her face. Originally the sentence was that a doctor would put acid in the eyes of the person who did thatâtruly an eye for an eye. This woman has been blinded and disfigured for the rest of her life, and why should the other person not experience the same thing? In the end, both the court and she decided not to go through with that remedy. Some people were relieved. But I think it at least sends a message that she was entitled to that....
Most of us are taught from a young age that revenge is wrong, and itâs better to turn the other cheek. But far from condemning vengeance as something we must learn to overcome, Fordham University law professor Thane Rosenbaum argues in his radical new book, Payback: The Case for Revenge, that the desire to get even is an indelible part of our nature, and that itâs nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, he says, weâd all be better off if society makes a place for revenge in our legal system, accepting it as an integral part of justice. Using examples from history, mythology, popular culture and recent eventsâsuch as the widely-celebrated killing of Osama bin LadenâRosenbaum asks us to âgive revenge a chance.â
Doesnât an eye for an eye leave the whole world blind? Wonât we have a more peaceful society if we abstain from seeking vengeance?
To me, thereâs a greater moral outrage in not taking an eye for an eye, or in taking less than an eye for an eye. Itâs the moral outrage that comes when people feel they can get away with something. Weâve been taught that vengeance is an artifact of our primitive past. But there is no justice unless people feel avenged. Criminals and wrongdoers should be made to pay back what is owed.
If revenge is natural and right, how did we get to the point where society considers it barbaric and primitive?
Thereâs a fear of revenge run amok, like when we hear of the Hatfields and the McCoys, where thereâs been so much tit for tat and doubling down on tit for tat that nobody knows how to stop it. But I think a blood feud is different from vengeance, because vengeance by definition is proportionate.
Your book focuses mainly on changing our legal system, and you write that courts need to provide âpermissible, legal pathwaysâ for vengeance. What would that look like in practice?
In the United States, our legal system says, âDonât take anything personally. You are merely a witness on behalf of the state.â It doesnât allow victims to speak honestly about the harms committed against them. And it doesnât let them have the necessary biological, psychological and moral imperative of an emotional release. Victims should be part of the suit, rather than calling it People vs. Jones. Victims should be participating in the prosecution, they should be able to speakâand not just at the sentencing hearing, they should speak during the part of the trial that deals with guilt itself.
I also raise the possibility of a victim veto, where if the state enters into a plea bargain that is insufficient in the mind of the victim or the victimâs family, they can say, âJudge, I canât live with that. This person killed my daughter. I canât possibly go home and think this is appropriate,â and prevent the bargain from taking place.
Why isnât it enough to give victims or their families a chance to speak before a convicted criminal is sentenced, as we sometimes do today? Doesnât including them in the part of the trial meant to determine guilt risk prejudicing the jury against a defendant who is presumed innocent?
The burden is still on the state and the victim to get the right person. And we already do engage victims as witnesses in the guilt phase. Itâs not as if they arenât a part of the process, itâs just that we donât let them speak to the jury, and they become voiceless. But I want the victim involved. Be a face we can see!
A Thane Rosenbaum courtroom is a much messier courtroomâitâs emotionally open. Itâs not as clipped and canned and sanitized. It gives people an opportunity to express their grief, their loss, to speak to their pain. We donât do that now. What Iâm talking about is a much more tearful expression of justice. Itâs much more honest; itâs therapeutic. Thereâs something very powerful in standing before your community and speaking to your loss.
That might not be consistent with provisions in the Bill of Rights that protect the accused, like the Sixth Amendmentâs requirement that a jury be impartial, and that a defendant be allowed to cross-examine anyone who testifies against him. Would you amend the Constitution to protect victimsâ rights as well?
Our Bill of Rights is set up to address the needs of the accused, but weâve completely renounced any obligation to worry about victimsâ rights. The Fourth, Fifth, and, most especially, Sixth Amendments are completely designed to protect the accused. No such reciprocal amendment protects victims, and any such amendment might conflict to some degree with those other three. But what if there were a Sixth Amendment subsection which read, âNotwithstanding all the rights just enumerated in favor of the accused, crime victims also have the right to confront witnesses, to participate in trial proceedings, to have their own counsel representing them at criminal trials, to participate in both the guilt and sentencing phases of criminal trials, and to exercise a victim veto.â You want to truly put an end to vigilante justice? The above language would probably go a long way toward accomplishing it.
You write a lot about murder and its impact on victimsâ families. Do you believe the death penalty is an appropriate way to help survivors feel avenged? What sorts of punishments are fair for the most heinous crimes?
I only feel strongly about the death penalty when weâre talking about the worst of the worst. Iâm not saying the death penalty or life in prison without parole can ever redress the harms that were committed. But I do know that to under-punish, to shortchange, is a kind of moral violation that we should find intolerable. I write about the woman in Iran who was blinded by a classmate, with acid thrown in her face. Originally the sentence was that a doctor would put acid in the eyes of the person who did thatâtruly an eye for an eye. This woman has been blinded and disfigured for the rest of her life, and why should the other person not experience the same thing? In the end, both the court and she decided not to go through with that remedy. Some people were relieved. But I think it at least sends a message that she was entitled to that....
