Of what need does retribution fulfill?

Long ago, someone once said, "An eye for an eye will leave everyone blind." That quote is often attributed to Gandhi, but there is no evidence to support that attribution. In any case, it matters not whoever said it, for it is the observation that matters.

Does retribution fulfill some human need or is it simply contrived in the belief that punishment is always just?

There is a continuum from personal and social interaction to social media to criminal justice. I've watched political slugfests in Facebook and Google+. I see the tabloids at the checkout stand, shouting at us, telling us that something bad happened to some celebrity. I see the news about how some killer was put to death for his crime. And yet, I am unmoved by it all, except to wonder, is retribution a human need?

Does retribution serve a biological need? How is it that making someone else suffer should ever elevate my life?

A few days ago, I was a at stoplight. The light turned green and I began to cross the intersection. Before I had crossed the intersection, another driver, a slower driver, had injected his car just before mine. I was not happy. I followed that driver as other cars passed me. Not only did that car turn on a red light in front of oncoming traffic, but once in front of me, he continued his travel at well below the speed of prevailing traffic. I was miffed.

Forgetting for a moment everything I have ever written about living in peace, I fumed over this offense. I looked for opportunities to overtake and pass this laggard. Eventually, I did find an opening and took my rightful spot in front of him (or her, not sure).

But then I had to ask myself, did that serve a human need? I used more gas that I had wanted to. I displayed arrogance in that moment of passing him. I was thinking of safety, but not that much. It was far more important to show him that was he did was wrong and that I should be ahead of him.

Maybe he had a good laugh, who knows? I can't read his mind so I have no idea if the message got through. Even if it did, was the message interpreted as I had wished it was? Did it serve a need?

I share this with you not just to say that I am not perfect, for there is more to this concept of retribution. Incidents like that are farther and fewer between as I get older, wiser, and acutely more aware of my mortality. But I have been thinking of that incident ever since until finally, I was motivated to write this article.

Before and since then, I've been observing my motives during interactions with others. I am now asking myself, does my reply serve a greater good, or am I trying to score points? Surely, old habits die hard.

We see retribution glorified in our popular culture, as if somehow, that stinging rebuke, that parting shot, that witnessing the destruction of the adversary, will somehow make us better. The most famous example is Star Wars, and in my mind, the destruction of the Death Star. It is interesting to see how a trade dispute can evolve into an interstellar war, when much of it could have been avoided through diplomacy.

Diplomacy is a skill and it must be taught. You cannot buy diplomacy, well, you can try, but that's like buying friends, and I don't want to buy my friends. Diplomacy requires patience and planning. Diplomacy requires humility, something that seems to be in awfully short supply in these trying times.

For example, if I have a disagreement with someone, I have to measure my words. When I say measure, I mean, does my reply serve a greater good or score a point? For every point I score will only increase the distance between us. True reconciliation comes from recognizing and addressing the concerns of both parties. Now that sounds more like something that meets a human need.

I have looked at many forms of retribution and found human needs still wanting. Did that witty retort on Facebook serve a human need? Ridiculing someone else does not fill a human need, rather, it only makes the need more bare on both parties. For the recipient and the sender both make their lack of skills more apparent.

Did my passing that other car serve a need? Not really. I wasted gas. I made two people less than happy. I was already unhappy, but I made a decision that made both of us unhappy as far as I can tell. Looking back, I can see that the other driver lacked the skill of courtesy and there was no need to punish the other driver. If he lacked some skill at driving, he is probably already suffering in some way, or he may be completely unaware. The disposition of other drivers is none of my business. What matters is that I do my part to avoid collisions and respect the rules of the road.

And then there is the murderer that we read about in the news. Oh, I know how some families of murder victims cry out for justice with capital punishment. They want retribution for their loss. They want recompense for someone that is priceless. No amount of retribution will ever fill that need, that loss.

The only way to meet the needs of those who are mourning loss is to grieve the loss. Killing the murderer does not meet that need. Revenge is never sweet. I've tried revenge and it doesn't work. All revenge does is distract me from the work I need to mourn the loss, whatever that loss might be. What happens to the other person is not my business.

There is a difference between punishment and restraint, too. If someone is a danger to others, then he must be restrained. Incarceration is only for restraint. Well, I think so, anyway. But we are often inclined to think that incarceration is for punishment. Does punishing someone really help society?

I don't think so. I think that restraining dangerous people is more important than punishing them. Once they are restrained, then we can start the process of teaching them the skills they need to get their needs met without hurting others. I recognize that there some people that are beyond rehabilitation. But killing them for their lack of skills doesn't really make any sense.

Someone once told me that people who are in prison want to be in prison. I don't think anyone wants to be in prison given the choice between freedom and incarceration. By the same token, I don't think anyone wants to be insulted in social media for lack of skills. Or spanked for lack of skills. Or fired for lack of skills.

Most of us have been trained to believe that people are motivated to do wrong. To do bad. To hurt. I disagree with that line of thinking. I believe that in every case where I have cause to look, the offense is a sign of a lack of skill. The offense, wherever it might be on the continuum, is ignorance of a better choice. Ignorance of the actual need that must be fulfilled.

Killers don't meet an existential need by killing someone else, and we don't meet an existential need by killing the apprehended killer. That adversary on social media, the one who insults you in a disagreement, is not meeting an existential need when he does so. Exacting humiliation on that adversary doesn't serve an existential need, either. Parents do not meet an existential need when they spank a child. None of that is required for survival or self-actualization for that matter.

So when someone says something to me, and I feel anger welling up, I slow down and ask myself, is what I'm about to do, is that something that expresses my needs, or does it just score a point? I will do that, the next time someone cuts in front of me, in traffic.