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
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