Abstract

In order to defend moderate retributivism Anthony Duff and Christopher Bennett have invoked the idea of the enduring of punishment (including imprisonment) as a form of apologetic penance that is needed to reach atonement. They successfully argue that the concept of penance makes plausible the positive retributivist conviction that the guilty deserve to suffer. Two crucial steps in their argument however still harbor problems. (1) punishments are usually imposed against the will of the offender, which is at odds with the character of penance, even if one stresses the ritual character of apology. Stubbornly unapologetic offenders who are forced to apologize cannot be said to have made an apology and be ‘reconciled’ even though they performed the ritual. (2) The claim that we need to limit offenders’ rights and liberties in order to express withdrawal of our recognition and respect (or as a sign that communal bonds are fractured) may have implications that are unacceptable for liberals. We could also limit offenders’ rights and liberties by forcing them into moralizing, educative or other rehabilitative programs. Suggestions will be given on how Duff and/or Bennett can adapt their approaches to avoid these problems.