There Is a Third Camp. Some Remarks in Response to Dr Czabański

Dr Jacek Czabański in his paper Why Consequentialists Should Be Retributivists Too argues that it is fully rational for consequentionalist to be retributivists too. I have no interest in questioning this claim, but I do have some problems with Czabański’s argument and its assumptions especially.

Compensation (restitution) should cover all victim’s expenses and losses (costs of investigation, apprehension, trial - for both sides, compensation for inability to work, to name only few). This standard drastically changes incentives structure for victims and enables emergence of plenty of different institutional arrangements and business models. Now, it is fully rational for victim to chase and prosecute offender, because benefits are concentrated. Of course, dispersed benefits, like deterrence and disablement (even rehabilitation) are in place, but they are only a byproduct. There is no risk of positive externalities problem (free-riding and underproduction), because individual benefits constitute sufficient incentive to ensure proper level of “production”.

Restitution in proposed form has very firm punitive character, namely - it allows victim (respectively: any agent acting in her behalf) to force offender to repay his obligation (debt), especially by incarcerating him. Of course, it would not be always necessary and, even if imprisonment would happen, it might take a form of minimum-security labor project. If any person in labor project would refuse to work, there are to options: (1) he would be supported by the state (or any willing person) or (2) he would not be supported at all (because he is not entitled to it), hence it will be much like suicide.

Download full text (PDF) »