Vengeance Under Law Etc

Alma Bashears escaped her Appalachian roots to forget the memories of a brutal rape. Now, a brilliant attorney, she receives an urgent call from her estranged family-Come back home. Your family needs you. Alma returns to defend her brother against a trumped-up murder charge. Upon discovering the prosecutor is the boy responsible for her rape, this white-trash hollow girl will dispense a little country justice.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

In this article I examine the legitimacy of allowing crime victims' desires for revenge to serve as a factor when imposing criminal punishment upon wrongdoers. I argue that revenge is in and of itself a value neutral emotion; an emotion which simply describes a victim's desire to get back at his victimizer. For example, if the victim wishes to mete out punishment upon a person who actually committed a criminal wrong upon him, such a desire for revenge, I suggest, is moral. Furthermore, if the punishment inflicted by the wronged party is proportional to the harm suffered, I argue that such a punishment represents a just resolution of the criminal matter. In other words, I disagree with the notion that revenge is, per se, immoral or unjust.My article then examines the historical and religious reasons why revenge justice was supplanted by State imposed justice, and concludes that it was not because of a belief in the inherent immorality of the desire for revenge, but rather, was due to the very practical concerns that revenge justice often punished the innocent, and permitted disproportionate and inequitable levels of punishment. Revenge justice also frequently created an endless and escalating level of violence which threatened, and in some cases, actually destroyed early civilizations.Based upon the above analyses, the article critically examines the traditional theories of Retribution and Utilitarianism as justifications for imposing criminal punishment, and concludes that both theories are deficient in that they fail to recognize and address the victim's interest in assuring just punishment. Similarly, the article also criticizes the notions that traditional tort remedies and restorative justice models, provide adequate venues for victim involvement and redress.The article thus concludes that victims' desires for revenge deserve to be recognized as a legitimate factor when deciding what the level of punishment should be, so long as the ultimate sentencing authority remains with the State. I then offer a number of procedural mechanisms which would enhance the level of victim participation at the sentencing phase of criminal justice proceedings, including granting victims party status at all proceedings where sentencing decisions are rendered.