Whose Justice? Recentering the Victim

The prison abolition debate has largely been waged around the offender: their desert, their rights, their capacity for rehabilitation. Angela Davis rejects the retributive logic underlying public support for prisons. She does not believe wrongdoers deserve to suffer, or that a criminal's misery carries any intrinsic moral value. For Davis, the idea that bad people deserve prison is ideological, not philosophical. (56)

Tommie Shelby draws from Davis’ ideas but argues that prisons are not inherently unjust, but that the conditions under which they operate often are. Where abolitionists argue that imprisonment is inherently dehumanizing, Shelby locates the problem in unjust practices within prisons, not incarceration itself (57). To me, this is persuasive—the case against prisons should be a case against the racist, classist, and degrading conditions that define them in practice, not against the institution as such.

Where I want to push further than Shelby is on the question of why a just prison system is defensible. His justification is largely security-based: prisons protect society. But security-framing treats the victim's violation as a social problem to be managed rather than a wrong done to a specific person. The victim becomes incidental. This misses something morally crucial.

When a serious crime is committed against a person, the harm is not only physical or legal. The offender implicitly declares, through their action, that the victim's personhood does not matter. That declaration leaves a wound that does not fully close. The victim may know, rationally, that their intrinsic moral status was never destroyed but their felt access to that status, their lived sense that their rights are real and inviolable, is permanently altered. No security arrangement addresses that.

Punishment, accountability, and moral affirmation are therefore indispensable, not as acts of revenge, but as the community's obligation to the victim. A punitive response grounded in the victim's violated rights affirms that this specific person was wronged and that their claim demands a response—this does not undo the harm. But it can partially restore the victim's felt sense of their own moral status. This restoration is not something society provides out of compassion but something the victim is owed.

Consider rape. One can construct scenarios where taking a life is justifiable: self-defense, defense of others, necessity. Rape can never have such justifications. It is a crime of pure selfishness, one that reduces another person entirely to an instrument. No background condition, no personal history, transforms it into something else. It is the clearest case for why the victim must be the moral starting point, because no story about the offender can compete with the absolute nature of the victim's claim.

A victim-centered framework remains fully compatible with Shelby's demand for just background conditions and Davis's critique of dehumanizing prison practices. But it insists that a just prison system is not one that merely manages offenders or keeps society secure—it is one whose fundamental purpose is the protection and vindication of those whose rights have been violated. This raises a harder question worth sitting with: if the victim's felt sense of their moral status can never be fully restored, does punishment risk becoming an empty gesture—one that satisfies a symbolic obligation without actually delivering justice? And if society is obligated to vindicate the victim, what does that obligation look like when the victim and the state disagree on what justice requires?


x

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We're all separate but equal

During my tutorial with Dylan yesterday, he brought up the SCOTUS case Brown vs. Board of Education in our discussion of a minimal state. Whilst reading Marx, I realized that both the legal implication (state according rights to individuals) and the societal implication (abolishment of the 'separate but equal' doctrine) of the case are relevant to the claims Marx is making.  Marx delineates between two societies -- political and civil -- and further between the two lives one leads in each -- public and private. In a political society, man is entitled to the liberties given to him by the state, and considers himself a member of a functional community. Marx hints at the mirage of political society, writing that man is “the imaginary member of an imaginary sovereignty, divested of his real, individual life, and infused with an unreal universality” (34). In such a society, he leads a public life, one in which the state can establish political equality by abolishing “the distinctio...
Read more

What Brettschneider Ought to Admit: Democracy Is Substantive

Although Corey Brettschneider presents his value theory of democracy as a third way between pure proceduralism and outcome-based accounts, his framework collapses into substantivism. Despite insisting that democracy cannot be reduced to “procedure-independent evaluations of outcomes,”(2) he explicitly grounds democratic legitimacy in substantive rights that “limit those policy outcomes that would fail to respect citizens as rulers.” (20). Legitimacy therefore hinges not merely on fair participation but on conformity to three independently specified values—equality of interests, political autonomy, and reciprocity. These values operate as external normative standards against which democratic decisions are judged. Brettschneider treats policies such as ex post facto laws or vote buying as democratically illegitimate regardless of procedural authorization, making clear that outcomes remain subject to direct moral assessment. This is not procedural democracy supplemented by rights; it is ...
Read more

'Enough and as Good' for Whom?

 Both Hobbes and Locke describe a state of nature grounded in equality and natural law. Yet, they reach sharply different conclusions about property. Hobbes denies any possibility of owning property in the state of nature. Locke, by contrast, argues that individuals may aquire private property prior to any government by mixing their labor with common resources. By allowing pre-political appropriation, Locke commits himself to moral constraints on ownership.  Locke introduces these limits through two provisos. The Spoiling proviso requires that an individual only claim ownership over land/natural resources to what one can use before it spoils, critizicing waste as a violation of natural law: "Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy" (21). To me, this limit is relatively clear and intuitive.  More demanding, however, is Locke's second proviso, claiming that appropriation is only legitimate if "enough, and as good" is left in common for others. At first...
Read more