Short Abstract:

In this study, beliefs about punishment as an aspect of Justice were examined. Qualitative responses to two open-ended items were coded based for level of tolerance (valence) for punishment. Across items, a majority of responses (55%) expressed support for some form of punishment. A significant portion of participants who favored punishment following wrongdoing (Q1) did not favor punishment when contrasted with peace (Q2); all other valences were consistent across questions.

Long Abstract:

Introduction

Issues of justice range from matters as large as the conflict over chemical weapons in Syria to as small as which roommate didn’t do her dishes; both infractions need to be addressed but what is the best way to do that? Justice is a multifaceted concept; the present study focused on beliefs about punishment as an aspect of justice.

  Traditional western justice is frequently referred to as retributive justice (Wenzel, 2007). This form of justice is centered on punitive measures as decided by a neutral state. From the Code of Hammurabi to the Old Testament to philosophies of ‘just desert” discussed by Immanuel Kant and others, the concept of “an eye for an eye” has continued to be influential. Are these famous philosophies merely justifications for moral disengagement? Punishment is by nature an imposition of will onto another in a damaging way. In his theory of moral disengagement, Albert Bandura posited that when one person harms another he or she will try to legitimize the harm in order to avoid negative feelings. Equating punishment to justice would neatly accomplish legitimacy. Writ

An alternative concept of justice is restorative justice. This form of justice is practiced widely in Africa and New Zealand and on a smaller scale in several European nations (Braithwaite, 2006). Restorative justice does not rule out punishment, but is not centered on it. The goal of restorative justice is to repair the harm that a breach caused, including rehabilitation of the wrongdoer. With some types of crime, it has been shown that the use of restorative justice reduces recidivism. It has also been shown that restorative justice can lead to greater victim satisfaction with the outcome (Gromet & Darley 2011). A reduction in recidivist crime is desirable, not only because it would be beneficial to our overburdened justice and prison system, but also because it could impact the cycle of violence. Ultimately, any progress in eliminating violence may improve the prospects for peace. 

Methods

Data were  collected from 143 participants through the administration of the Personal and Institutional rights to Aggression and Peace Survey (PAIRTAPS) utilizing the online survey website www.surveymonkey.com. The survey developed by Malley-Morrison and colleagues (2006) poses a series of questions to which participants are asked to respond by ranking level of agreement on a Likert scale and explaining this ranking in their own words. A coding manual was developed to examine qualitative responses concerning such issues as punishment, peace, and justice.

In this paper, I focus on qualitative responses to the items: “There is no justice until wrong-doers have been punished; the more serious their wrong-doing, the more severe their punishment should be,” (Q1) and “Punishing wrong-doers after armed conflict and other forms of aggression is more important than peace,” (Q2)  Each codable unit was coded into five major valence categories, each of which had subcategories: pro-punishment, anti-punishment, qualified punishment, unresolved, and non-relevant or uncodable. Specifiers (Legal, Deterrent, Idealism, Rehabilitation, Forgiveness, and Gandhi) were included to account for frequently recurring terms that did not qualify as valence categories.

The relationship between conceptions of justice as punitive, and beliefs about the primacy of peace was examined.  A second analysis examining the association of particular peace and punishment themes in relation to moral disengagement is also underway.  .

Results

            Thirteen percent of the responses to the Justice question were coded for anti-punishment valence, 39% for pro-punishment valence, 26% for qualified pro punishment valence, 11.6% for unresolved valence, and 10.4% for non-relevance. A larger percentage (44.3%) of responses to the Peace question were coded for anti-punishment valence, 21.4% for pro-punishment valence, 10% for qualified pro punishment valence, 17.1% for unresolved valence, and 7.1.% as non-relevant.

               A Fisher’s Exact test indicated a significant difference in valence of pro-punishment responses from Q1 to Q2 (p<.01, 61.5%, 38.5%) indicating that respondents did not respond with consistent valence. There were no gender differences in the valence of responses.

Discussion

        Preliminary results indicate consistency in answer valence regarding beliefs on punishment, with the notable exception of those strongly oriented towards punishment, who varied significantly between questions. It is possible that this variation could be an indicator of moral disengagement, showing cognitive dissonance. Further analyses are needed to explore this possibility.

Overall the majority of respondents (55%) were in favor of some form of punishment as an aspect of Justice. While a significant amount of those participants who favored punishment as form of justice following wrong-doing were less in favor of punishment when the outcome was contrasted with peace, there was otherwise consistency in the responses to both questions.