BROADCASTS.com

All humans have an emotionally-driven sense of fairness. We get treated unfairly and we get mad. It\u2019s no wonder, then, that our laws\u2013and those of almost everyone else\u2013are intended to assure that people are treated fairly. When those laws fail and we are treated unfairly, we encounter another human universal\u2013the desire for revenge. If someone pokes you in the eye, more likely than not your first inclination is going to be to poke them in the eye too. That \u201ceye-for-an-eye\u201d logic just feels intuitively fair to us. Yet, our laws\u2013and those of most \u201ccivilized\u201d places\u2013explicitly deny victims the right to avenge their injuries. The state has a monopoly on justice, and the state\u2019s justice (theoretically) has nothing to do with revenge. The courts asks victims to check their \u201cirrational\u201d desire for revenge and pursue what is (supposedly) a higher, more \u201crational\u201d form of justice.\n\nIn Payback: The Case for Revenge (University of Chicago Press, 2013), Thane Rosenbaum argues that we\u2019ve gone way too far in our rejection of revenge. By denying the right to revenge, we have essentially asked people to do something that is impossible\u2013squelch their very natural feeling that wrong-doers must pay in equal measure for the harms they brought. In order for the moral universe to be righted, scofflaws must pay\u2013and be seen to have paid\u2013for what they have done. Our laws recognize none of this, says Rosenbaum, and we should do something about it. We need to bring revenge, he argues, back in.\n\n\nLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices\nSupport our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law