The Template Analysis Procedure

The retribution goal is the earliest known goal of punishment. It is anchored on the basis of what is deserved for deed done, or merited punishment. Retribution simply means that

172 punishment of criminals can be justified on the ground that, because of their actions, they deserve to be punished. Hence, retribution means punishment given in recognition of the deed done. It is the position of the proponents of this goal, that people are punished to receive their merited punishment or just due to the harm done to the society. Society therefore, demands a sentence proportionate to the offender‟s culpability. Couched differently, the society demands vengeance against the evil doer.⁴²⁸ Hodges posits that:

The theory demands that an individual who violates societal rules deserve punishment because he has de-balanced the scale of justice. The perpetrator deserves punishment proportionate to the harm caused to restore the scale of justice and this is the essence of just desert or deservedness of the punishment. According to this theory, it is only the imposition of punishment that purges the offender of the wrong done and restores him in the society to the position he was prior to the commission of the offence. This theory preaches expiation which advocates that punishment is a debt which the offender owes his victim and the society by his violation so that until he serves that punishment, the debt remains unpaid and the guilt hangs on him. His liability is extinguished when he serves the punishment.⁴²⁹

Adeiza is of the view that, the basis of retribution is to strive to repair the emotional or physical disruption caused by the offender to the victim by fairly exerting punishment of a like nature, and if failing in this, by exacting punishment of a just nature.⁴³⁰According to

428 J K Ifeolu, op cit, p11.

429 D C Hodges, „Punishment‟ International Phenomenological Society; Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol 18, no. 2, December 1957,p218.

430 E M Adeiza, „Reforming the Punitive Policies of Nigeria‟s Crime Control Regime as a Source of National Growth‟, p 6. Available at< www.etudai. yeandco.com > accessed on 17 April, 2017.

173 Neubauer,⁴³¹retribution has served as the justification for punishment from centuries ago, starting with the enlightenment, but lost its influence as it was seen as barbaric having been anchored on revenge, and more utilitarian goals for sentencing were preferred. In recent times however, it has again attracted the interest of scholars, and the criminal justice reformers used a better phrase to describe it as „deserved punishment or just deserts‟. By the just desert principle, a person that infringes the rights of others does wrong and deserves blame for his conduct. It is because he deserves blame that the sanctioning authority is entitled to choose a response that expresses moral disapproval. However the theory has been criticized on the basis that, it is exceedingly difficult to decide what is the fair proportion between a crime and its punishment, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case.⁴³²

It is submitted by Ifeolu that, aside from very clear incidents like, life for life, actual tooth for tooth, blow for blow, it is practically not possible to mete out punishment in exact proportion to the crime. He posited that at whatever point one looks at legal, moral or religious retribution, the theory has fallen out of acceptability. From the legal point law seeks to protect lives and property by the prevention of crime, but the theory is not aimed at crime prevention but punishment of offenders. Ifeolu concluded that in Nigeria, despite the use of retributive punishment in capital offences, crime rate is still on the increase.⁴³³

From the foregoing, the goal of retribution is geared towards exerting punishment on criminals who injure members of the society. The punishment to be inflicted should be equal to the offence committed, because their actions have violated the rights of others; and because their victims were subjected to harm, they should also be treated accordingly. Thus, the logic is that it is natural, fair and just that criminal offenders receive punishment for their

431 D W Neubauer, American’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System (9^th edn, USA: Transcontinental Printing/Louiseville,2008 )pp321-322.

432 C F Hart, „Punishment and the Elimination of Responsibility‟ in Okonkwo &Naish (Ibadan: Spectrum Law Publishing) p29.

433 J K Ifeolu, op cit, p15- 16.

174 crimes in the exact proportion. An example is the death sentence for the offence of murder.

The researcher agrees with the criticism to this goal that in some offences, it could be very difficult to quantify the punishment that will be equivalent to the offence committed, and in that case the punishment inflicted may be more or less than required. The researcher also holds the view that due to the quest for money and moral decay in the society, punishments do not scare some persons from committing offences. For example, in view of the way and manner at which very rich people are celebrated and honoured in the society; punishment may not deter some people from going into armed robbery, money laundering, drug trafficking, and many other crimes, to acquire money. Thus retribution is necessary, but should be complimented with other goals, so as to cure the criminal mentality.