The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment

By Kevin M. Carlsmith. 2006

268 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, General Decision Sciences, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b225563693740443270c17e1516dd1b39c445bec

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In General Decision Sciences

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Retribution as Revenge and Retribution as Just Deserts (2013, background): “…to the wrong committed (Banks, 2008; Carlsmith, 2006; Carlsmith et al., 2002; Finckenauer, 1988).1 Punishment is considered an end in itself; it should be determined by the perceived seriousness of the offence and the intention and responsibility of the offender (Carlsmith, 2006; Vidmar, 2000).”
Mind Perception Is the Essence of Morality (2012, background): “The same sentiment may also apply when we punish others, helping to make sense of people’s lust for retribution (Carlsmith, 2006; Carlsmith & Sood, 2009): Pain transforms offenders from agents to patients, redeeming them in the eyes of society.”
Intergroup bias in third-party punishment stems from both ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination (2014, background): “The importance of retribution is in line with findings from justice research indicating that laypersons’ punishment judgments are driven primarily by this motive (Carlsmith, 2006; Keller et al., 2010).”
On Justifying Punishment: The Discrepancy Between Words and Actions (2008, methodology): “Recent empirical studies have demonstrated that people generally behave in line with Kant’s retributive theory of punishment ( Carlsmith, 2006; Carlsmith, Darley, & Robinson, 2002; Glaeser & Sacerdote, 2000; Hamilton & Rytina, 1980; Kahneman, Schkade, & Sunstein, 1998; McFatter 1982; Roberts & Gebo”
Employees’ Reactions to Peers’ Unfair Treatment by Supervisors: The Role of Ethical Leadership (2014, background): “A review of the third-party literature shows punishment of offenders as a prevalent and salient intervention by observers of injustice (Carlsmith 2006; Okimoto and Wenzel 2011; Van Prooijen 2010), and a way to satisfy the victim’s (Gro-”
Restoration and Retribution: How Including Retributive Components Affects the Acceptability of Restorative Justice Procedures (2006, background): “Prior research identifies just deserts as a consideration that guides what information people want to obtain about a crime in order to make a sentencing decision ( Carlsmith, 2006; Carlsmith et al., 2002; Darley et al., 2000).”
Psychological Aspects of Retributive Justice (2007, background): “Several of our earlier papers (Carlsmith, 2006; Carlsmith et al., 2002) devoted substantial effort to defining and justifying our choice of manipulations, and we will summarize those efforts here because they are essential to understanding the results.”