Victimisation and retribution: A barrier against penal populism
Victimisation and retribution are central to current criminal justice debates, but often for the wrong reasons. Both are misunderstood by supporters and critics alike: the former reducing retribution to revenge, the latter invoking victims to justify harsher punishment. This paper argues that both concepts have been politically instrumentalised, stripping them of their moral depth. By distinguishing victimisation from victimhood, and moral injury from moral outrage, we show how real experiences of injustice risk being overshadowed by symbolic and strategic claims. Against this background, we propose a rethinking of retribution, not as revenge, but as a public, forward-looking response to moral injury. Building on Jean Hampton’s work, we develop the notion of positive retribution, which recognises victims as moral and political actors, without reducing their suffering to a tool for punishment. This view affirms the moral weight of victimhood and retribution, resisting both their politicised use and the erosion of their deeper meaning.