Indian society is in a vulnerable state right now as it looks for closure in the brutality committed against a trainee doctor in Kolkata.
Many have sought the death penalty. But seeking retributive justice in the form of capital punishment appears more as a trauma response. It might seem to heal people and reinforce ideas of justice in the country, but its effectiveness is debated.
Research indicates that while retributive justice may resonate with certain psychological motivations, such as pacifying outrage and value confirmation, its effect as a deterrent can be limited. A purely retributive approach often neglects the needs of victims and the broader societal impact of the crime. Crimes against women and minorities are a reflection of societal ills.
In many cases, the crime is not the end of the oppression to which a victim is subjected. In the R.G. Kar Hospital case, the evidence was allegedly tampered with, and a political slugfest has followed.
Retributive justice in China, particularly in the context of sexual assault and rape, has been a subject of significant scrutiny. While traditional retributive justice focuses on punishment, recent studies suggest that integrating restorative justice principles may enhance outcomes. Research indicates that restorative justice practices which emphasise repairing harm and involving all stakeholders, can increase public trust in the justice system and potentially reduce re-offending behaviours.
The effectiveness of retributive justice alone in reducing rape cases in countries with high crime rates appears limited, as evidenced by research conducted in Kenya. An economic survey by the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics of 2017, showed that despite the implementation of mandatory minimum sentences for sexual offences, the anticipated deterrent effect had not materialised, with reported rape incidents plateauing rather than declining. So while a change in law might have a positive effect, retributive justice alone may not sufficiently address the complexities of crime deterrence. There is a dire need for public education on sexual offences and gender sensitivity along with it.
The implementation of retributive justice systems appears to have a complex impact on the reporting of rape cases and subsequent conviction rates too. Such justice systems do not entail direct or immediate justice.
India’s criminal justice system has often been criticised for being overly focused on the perpetrator rather than the victim. There is a strong emphasis on punishing the offender, rather than rehabilitating them or providing support to victims. The legal process is often lengthy, causing immense distress to victims. Victims often experience re-traumatisation during the legal process and have to relive their traumas often.
Studies show that equitable distribution of resources can lower crime rates, implying that retributive justice must be complemented by social and corrective justice with an effort to address underlying social issues.
In Côte d’Ivoire, while there was a shift towards seeking state justice post-conflict, negative social reactions, such as victim-blaming, significantly deterred survivors from reporting incidents to law enforcement, despite a preference for formal justice mechanisms. Also, in the UK, a 5% conviction rate for reported rapes indicates systemic issues within the justice process that undermine the effectiveness of retributive justice. Overall, while retributive justice aims to hold offenders accountable, its effectiveness in increasing reporting and conviction rates is limited by societal attitudes and systemic barriers.
Individual psychological factors also play crucial roles in the effectiveness of retributive justice. Therefore, while retributive justice may address some motivations for crime, it is essential not to take quick decisions.
The pursuit of justice for heinous crimes, particularly those committed against women, must go beyond the immediate desire for retribution.
Nitpreet Singh is a psychologist, co-founder and gender activist at Fife Trust.
