The delight of retribution

I've just finished watching an episode in Charlie Brooker's Black Mirror, White Bear. It's one of the most powerful dramas I've watched in a long time. If you have a spare 40 minutes, I highly recommend you take a look (the below link is 4OD, but it is also available in other places on the web)...

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/blac ... /54663-003

***spoiler alert***

To me what this episode reflects is the potential of society's penchant for extreme forms of retribution against those who have committed extreme crimes. But it complicates the moral justification for the lead character's torment through the fact that she has no recollection of her crime (and therefore cannot subjectively connect her punishment with her crime meaningfully) and that the punishment is so calculatedly horrific.

Most people who visit this forum have not done anything as bad as the lead character supposedly did. But many of us feel we deserve punishment for our wrongdoings in some shape or form. We have been brought up to believe that people should "pay" for their wrongdoings.

But it's this word "pay" that needs to be questioned. There is paying in the form of restoration or atonement - which produces rational, measurable outcomes - and there is paying in terms of satiating the emotional response of the public - which appeals to the baser, reactionary parts of the human mind.

Are people who call for hangings and torture really just "letting off steam" after a tough day in the office? Or would they genuinely be able to sleep better at night knowing criminals were being treated this way?

Furthermore, is being able to sleep soundly at night, or satiating one's desire to see cold blooded retribution, a legitimate reason alone to instigate such punishments?

Is the end goal of retribution relief and/or delight for the victims and public, or is it to initiate remorse in the wrongdoer so they might become new people?

The thoughts I take from this episode are, if the end goal is delight, then we may find that such delight is not in fact wholly reflective of the subject of torment being a "wrongdoer". The fact the subject of torment is the wrongdoer just makes the delight more socially acceptable.

In other words, while we may contend our visceral emotional responses to wrongdoings are based in a sense of justice, they may in fact be a reflection of something much deeper, unconscious and far less righteous.

It is so hard to know whether retribution is sought in good or bad faith. The self-identified law-abiding citizen may actually be a wife beater... but fails to recognise themselves as such. The vigilante may be acting due to deep wells of compassion for victims, or they may be attempting to redeem their own sins in the eyes of society. Without being able to mind-read, it's so hard to know... but I certainly think there are people who revel in retribution for the sake of retribution but would never even think of volunteering with victims of violence or abuse. There is a lot of cognitive dissonance going round.