Second-Party Punishment: Retaliation and Revenge

Morris B. Hoffman

doi:10.1017/CBO9781139811873.005

4 - Second-Party Punishment: Retaliation and Revenge

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2014

Morris B. Hoffman

Show author details

Morris B. Hoffman: Affiliation:
University of Colorado Boulder

Book contents

Get access

Summary

From panic, pride and terror, revenge that knows no rein.

Rudyard Kipling

The Avenging Animal

History is full of retaliation and revenge because people are full of retaliation and revenge. When the invading Romans made the mistake of flogging the Celts’ king's widow, Boudicca, and raping her daughters, she raised an army that wreaked havoc from one end of Britain to the other. It took three legions to restore order, and by that time Boudicca had burned three Roman settlements, including London. Her army was finally defeated in the West Midlands. As she and her daughters rode around on her chariot to rally her doomed troops for the final lost battle, Tacitus reports that she told them:

I am not fighting for my kingdom and wealth. I am fighting as an ordinary person for my lost freedom, my bruised body and my outraged daughters.…The gods will grant us the vengeance we deserve.

God's vengeance is retaliatory precisely because when we sin we sin against God's direct commands. Punishments by deities are not restrained third-party punishments meted out against remote wrongdoers. They are in divine and terrifyingly unrestrained retaliation for cheating the gods directly. Adam and Eve were banished from Eden because God was retaliating against them for breaking his rules. Constructs of Hell are likewise a type of heavenly revenge. The fear of heavenly revenge is meant to deter us from earthly wrongs. One of the profoundly civilizing effects of all religions is to turn social codes – which inherently may have insufficient bite – into divine commands with infinite bite.

Type: Chapter
Information: The Punisher's Brain
The Evolution of Judge and Jury
, pp. 121 - 149

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139811873.005 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Cavallo, Jo Ann, Canto XVII: On Revenge, in Lectura Dantis, Purgatorio, A Canto-by-Canto Commentary 178 (A. Mandelbaum et al., eds., 2008)

Otterbein, K. & Otterbein, C., An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth: a cross-cultural study of feuding, Am. Anthro., 67(6), 1470–1482 (1965)Google Scholar

Henrich, J. et al., Costly punishment across human societies, Science, 312, 1767–1770 (June 2006)Google Scholar PubMed

Gordon, R., A retaliatory role for algal projectiles, J. Theor. B., 126(4), 419–436 (1987)Google Scholar

Godin, J. & Davis, S., Who dares, benefits: predator approach behaviour in the guppy (Poecilia retuclata) Deters Predator Pursuit, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 259, 193–200 (1995)Google Scholar

Clutton-Brock, T. & Parker, G., Punishment in animal societies, Nature, 373, 209–216 (January 1995)Google Scholar

Boyd, R. et al., The evolution of altruistic punishment, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sciences, 100(6), 3531–3535 (2003)Google Scholar

Fehr, E. & Gächter, S., Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments, Am. Econ. Rev., 90(4), 980–994 (2000)Google Scholar

Jensen, K. et al., Chimpanzees Are vengeful but not spiteful, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sciences, 104(32), 13046–13050 (2007)Google Scholar

Mehta, P. et al., Neural mechanisms of the testosterone-aggression relation: the role of the orbitofrontal cortex, J. Cogn. Neurosci., 22, 2357–2368 (2010)Google Scholar

De Drue, C. et al., The neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans, Science, 328, 1408–1411 (June 2010)Google Scholar

Bechara, A. et al., The role of the amygdala in decision-making, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 985, 356–369 (2003)Google Scholar

Montague, P. R., To detect and correct: norm violations and their enforcement, Neuron, 56(1), 14–18 (2007)Google Scholar

Sanfey, A., The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game, Science, 300, 1755–1758 (June 2003)Google Scholar

Lee, D. et al., Reinforcement learning and decision making in monkeys during a competitive game, Cogn. Brain Res., 22(1), 45–58 (2004)Google Scholar

Vince, J. H., Introduction to “Against Aristocrates” in 3 Demosthenes, Orations 212–213 (1935)

Meier, M. J., Self-Defense, in Thoughts and Law in Qin and Han China: Studies Dedicated to Anthony Hulsewé on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday 226 (W. Idema & E. Zürcher, eds., E. J. Brill 1990)Google Scholar

Kopel, David, The Human Right of Self-Defense, 22 B.Y.U. J. Pub. L. 43, 119 & n. 394 (2007)Google Scholar

Dressler, Joshua, Understanding Criminal Law 275 (4th ed., LexisNexis 2006). Plato also describes the right as a right to defend “father, mother, brother, wife or other relations.” Note 29 supraGoogle Scholar

Nourse, Victoria, Passion's Progress: Modern Law Reform and the Provocation Defense, 106 Yale L.J. 1331 (1997)Google Scholar

King, Nancy J. et al., When Process Affects Punishment: Differences in Sentences after Guilty Plea, Bench Trial and Jury Trial, 105 Colum. L. Rev. 959 (2005)