The Right to Punish Today: Navigating Scientific and Cultural Shifts

The concept of punishment has developed over time to a rationalized legal form, yet it remains marked by unresolved tensions. Retributive justice, criticized since the Enlightenment, is often seen as legalized revenge, while utilitarian models might raise concerns about determinism and the erosion of personal responsibility. Punishment’s inherent violence continues to elude full justification, leading to increased interest in alternatives like restorative justice. Narrative forms, such as fairy tales and prison writing, reveal its hidden dimensions. Prison letters, in particular, expose the harsh reality of incarceration and the disconnection between inmates and the outside world. Foucault’s idea of punishment as biopolitical control highlights how modern penal systems replaced public torture with imprisonment. Neuroscience and forensic psychiatry have further complicated the notion of responsibility, challenging free will and traditional legal categories. Yet, retributivism preserves essential legal principles, such as guilt and legal certainty. While a rethinking of punitive practices seems essential, completely abolishing punishment remains problematic. A revised system should, on the one hand, take into account human dignity and recognize offenders as moral agents; on the other, it should require judges to critically engage with scientific knowledge, reaffirming their ethical and interpretive role in the administration of justice.