David Boonin

In the last chapter of The Problem of Punishment, David Boonin attempts to defend his belief in restitution as a replacement of punishment by the state. Unfortunately, Boonin falls short in his attempt to defend absolute restitution when addressing restitution during both murder and rape. Using convoluted language, the reader is lost in his arguments defense, instead of admitting that it falls short in cases such as rape and murder. To further understand this, it is necessary to consider the following. First, Boonin’s definition of pure restitution and why he treats it as an absolute concept. Second, Boonin’s defense of restitution in cases of rape and murder. Third, the problem with restitution.
Boonin’s view on punishment is simple, it is an intentional harm done to the individual that has violated the law. Throughout his work, he debunks the different philosophical theories to defend state inflicted punishment, and he reaches the conclusion that it is both impermissible and immoral. From this point Boonin takes on the moral argument that the only power the state should have involving justice is by forcing a system of pure restitution (215). The concept of restitution raises a wide array of
questions and objections, especially while addressing rape and murder and restitution being either an insufficient form of ‘justice’ or the implications behind the argument morally reprehensible, but avoided by Boonin.
Boonin’s main argument in both the defense of rape and murder is that of putting a financial value to what has been lost.
Throughout his argument in the case of rape he makes it clear that it is problematic and that the damage or harm that has been done cannot be returned to the victim. Then Boonin reaches the mediocre statement that the restitution does not necessarily need to be accepted by the victim, similar to the case of the holocaust victims and Germany (238). Making it clear that the state has no moral authority to punish the defendant other than enforcing the repayment of restitutions. Boonin takes the same approach with murder, but clarifies that unlike murder calculating monetary loss from the death of a person is easier to calculate than damages made by
rape.
The problem with Boonin’s argument in the case of murder is that he implies the transfer of ownership of the individual who committed the crime to the estate of the victim, but does not at any point clarify the fact that until the individual has repaid their debt they are slaves to the individuals closest to the victim. Which from a humanitarian and possibly moral point of view the concept of punishment is less morally reprehensible than slavery. As for both cases, Boonin has minimized the existence of individuals who have suffered crimes such as these to a monetary amount in a restitutive society.
In conclusion, like the moral schools of thought Boonin addresses in the beginning of the book, he also falls short due to his absolutist approach to restitutive justice. Not only minimizing the existence of individuals to a monetary amount, but also ignoring the possibility of a hybridization of both restitutive and punishment based justice system. Placing a dollar amount on rape and the possibility of the existence of slavery seem morally repulsive; allowing Boonin’s argument to fall short in finding a solution to the problem of punishment.