What do you think?
Rate this book
Payback: The Case for Revenge
We call it justice—the assassination of Osama bin Laden, the incarceration of corrupt politicians or financiers like Rod Blagojevich and Bernard Madoff, and the climactic slaying of cinema-screen villains by superheroes. But could we not also call it revenge? We are told that revenge is uncivilized and immoral, an impulse that individuals and societies should actively repress and replace with the order and codes of courtroom justice. What, if anything, distinguishes punishment at the hands of the government from a victim’s individual desire for retribution? Are vengeance and justice really so very different? No, answers legal scholar and novelist Thane Rosenbaum in Payback: The Case for Revenge —revenge is, in fact, indistinguishable from justice.
Revenge, Rosenbaum argues, is not the problem. It is, in fact, a perfectly healthy emotion. Instead, the problem is the inadequacy of lawful outlets through which to express it. He mounts a case for legal systems to punish the guilty commensurate with their crimes as part of a societal moral duty to satisfy the needs of victims to feel avenged. Indeed, the legal system would better serve the public if it gave victims the sense that vengeance was being done on their behalf. Drawing on a wide range of support, from recent studies in behavioral psychology and neuroeconomics, to stories of vengeance and justice denied, to revenge practices from around the world, to the way in which revenge tales have permeated popular culture—including Hamlet , The Godfather , and Braveheart —Rosenbaum demonstrates that vengeance needs to be more openly and honestly discussed and lawfully practiced.
Fiercely argued and highly engaging, Payback is a provocative and eye-opening cultural tour of revenge and its rewards—from Shakespeare to The Sopranos . It liberates revenge from its social stigma and proves that vengeance is indeed ours , a perfectly human and acceptable response to moral injury. Rosenbaum deftly persuades us to reconsider a misunderstood subject and, along the way, reinvigorates the debate on the shape of justice in the modern world.
Revenge, Rosenbaum argues, is not the problem. It is, in fact, a perfectly healthy emotion. Instead, the problem is the inadequacy of lawful outlets through which to express it. He mounts a case for legal systems to punish the guilty commensurate with their crimes as part of a societal moral duty to satisfy the needs of victims to feel avenged. Indeed, the legal system would better serve the public if it gave victims the sense that vengeance was being done on their behalf. Drawing on a wide range of support, from recent studies in behavioral psychology and neuroeconomics, to stories of vengeance and justice denied, to revenge practices from around the world, to the way in which revenge tales have permeated popular culture—including Hamlet , The Godfather , and Braveheart —Rosenbaum demonstrates that vengeance needs to be more openly and honestly discussed and lawfully practiced.
Fiercely argued and highly engaging, Payback is a provocative and eye-opening cultural tour of revenge and its rewards—from Shakespeare to The Sopranos . It liberates revenge from its social stigma and proves that vengeance is indeed ours , a perfectly human and acceptable response to moral injury. Rosenbaum deftly persuades us to reconsider a misunderstood subject and, along the way, reinvigorates the debate on the shape of justice in the modern world.
- GenresPsychology
314 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2013
7 people are currently reading
59 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
August 25, 2013
In Payback: The Case for Revenge, Thane Rosenbaum argues several points:
1. Anger is a natural and healthy reaction to being the victim of crime or being the relative of a victim.
2. A desire to punish the person responsible for crimes against oneself or one's family is also natural, although it's become culturally unacceptable to express this desire in American society.
3. In the Western world (and, to an extent, in other parts of the world as well), the earliest legal systems expected--and even required--the victim or the victim's family to be personally responsible for exacting vengeance against the malfeasor. The rules for carrying out this vengeance varied by culture and time period, but they are generally exemplified by the lex talionis, ie, what most of us would call "an eye for an eye."
4. Humans are wired to feel indignant at experiencing unfairness or seeing unfairness happen to others. We are, likewise, wired to feel pleasure in the anticipation of revenge ("revenge is sweet" is very close to literally true). These are some of the reasons that we as audiences love revenge stories: from Taken to The Count of Monte Cristo, The Brave One to the Oresteia of Aeschylus.
5. During the Enlightenment, when the concept of the modern state was being created, the right to take vengeance was one of the rights that states assumed from individuals as part of the social contract. While this is more efficient in some ways (ie, not everyone is ready to go Inigo Montoya for their relatives, nor is it efficient for every crime victim to learn to be Batman) it began (in the author's view) a negative trend toward ignoring the needs of victims and failing to adequately punish criminals.
6. The modern American court system relegates victims to the status of mere witnesses to the crimes committed against them, and takes little note of their needs: to have their losses recognized and their dignity restored.
7. American justice would better serve victims by including them earlier and more completely in the judicial process, most significantly by allowing them to approve or disapprove of plea agreements, which, per the author, end 90% of cases before they can go to trial--thereby depriving the victim of his or her "day in court" and often reducing the malfeasor's sentence significantly.
Rosenbaum has a knack for quotable prose; I spent much of the first hundred pages jotting down pithy observations on revenge. His arguments, though, tend to cover and recover the same ground, leading me to wonder if I couldn't have read a much better book in 150 pages instead of 280. More problematic than the skim-inducing repetition, though, is a systematic tendency to treat the Western experience as universal and to treat "honor" and "revenge" as primarily male subjects.
Rosenbaum's arguments in favor of revenge and vengeance rest squarely on the (Biblical/Western) concept of lex talionis, and the idea that it was at one time universally accepted as the rule of the land. I would have been more inclined to accept this as an acceptable thesis if Rosenbaum had identified a culture--any culture--which didn't base its law on lex talionis or its local equivalent; that Rosenbaum didn't locate any counter-examples suggests to me that he didn't look far. I would have been fine with this bias if Rosenbaum had identified it, but throughout the book, he insists that the desire for revenge and the "eye for an eye" system of judgement is universally human.
The other reason I read this book with my teeth clenched half the time is Rosenbaum's male-centric viewpoint. Frequent are the citations of fathers, husbands, and brothers avenging their male and female relatives or injuries to themselves; both in general and in specific examples, women are only rarely mentioned as avengers, and these are often fictional, ie, in True Grit and The Brave One. I believe one case of a mother avenging her child's death was cited, along with a few cases of women who killed abusive husbands. Historically, revenge and honor have both been male provinces; to speak continually and glowingly of how vengeance was great for "human dignity" and "honor" ignores half the population. Rosenbaum makes a half-hearted attempt to distance his noble ideas of revenge from the horrifying honor killings taking place in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and in other communities around the world (including the US), but his objection to this variety of revenge is mainly that it's "disproportionate"--not that, like many of his western examples, it's predicated on the idea that women are the property of their husbands, fathers, and brothers, and that injuries to women are injuries not to them and their human dignity, but to the honor of their male relatives.
While Payback was an interesting read, it was deeply flawed: both in form (circular writing) and in content (inattention to Western-centric bias and underlying misogyny). Read with caution.
1. Anger is a natural and healthy reaction to being the victim of crime or being the relative of a victim.
2. A desire to punish the person responsible for crimes against oneself or one's family is also natural, although it's become culturally unacceptable to express this desire in American society.
3. In the Western world (and, to an extent, in other parts of the world as well), the earliest legal systems expected--and even required--the victim or the victim's family to be personally responsible for exacting vengeance against the malfeasor. The rules for carrying out this vengeance varied by culture and time period, but they are generally exemplified by the lex talionis, ie, what most of us would call "an eye for an eye."
4. Humans are wired to feel indignant at experiencing unfairness or seeing unfairness happen to others. We are, likewise, wired to feel pleasure in the anticipation of revenge ("revenge is sweet" is very close to literally true). These are some of the reasons that we as audiences love revenge stories: from Taken to The Count of Monte Cristo, The Brave One to the Oresteia of Aeschylus.
5. During the Enlightenment, when the concept of the modern state was being created, the right to take vengeance was one of the rights that states assumed from individuals as part of the social contract. While this is more efficient in some ways (ie, not everyone is ready to go Inigo Montoya for their relatives, nor is it efficient for every crime victim to learn to be Batman) it began (in the author's view) a negative trend toward ignoring the needs of victims and failing to adequately punish criminals.
6. The modern American court system relegates victims to the status of mere witnesses to the crimes committed against them, and takes little note of their needs: to have their losses recognized and their dignity restored.
7. American justice would better serve victims by including them earlier and more completely in the judicial process, most significantly by allowing them to approve or disapprove of plea agreements, which, per the author, end 90% of cases before they can go to trial--thereby depriving the victim of his or her "day in court" and often reducing the malfeasor's sentence significantly.
Rosenbaum has a knack for quotable prose; I spent much of the first hundred pages jotting down pithy observations on revenge. His arguments, though, tend to cover and recover the same ground, leading me to wonder if I couldn't have read a much better book in 150 pages instead of 280. More problematic than the skim-inducing repetition, though, is a systematic tendency to treat the Western experience as universal and to treat "honor" and "revenge" as primarily male subjects.
Rosenbaum's arguments in favor of revenge and vengeance rest squarely on the (Biblical/Western) concept of lex talionis, and the idea that it was at one time universally accepted as the rule of the land. I would have been more inclined to accept this as an acceptable thesis if Rosenbaum had identified a culture--any culture--which didn't base its law on lex talionis or its local equivalent; that Rosenbaum didn't locate any counter-examples suggests to me that he didn't look far. I would have been fine with this bias if Rosenbaum had identified it, but throughout the book, he insists that the desire for revenge and the "eye for an eye" system of judgement is universally human.
The other reason I read this book with my teeth clenched half the time is Rosenbaum's male-centric viewpoint. Frequent are the citations of fathers, husbands, and brothers avenging their male and female relatives or injuries to themselves; both in general and in specific examples, women are only rarely mentioned as avengers, and these are often fictional, ie, in True Grit and The Brave One. I believe one case of a mother avenging her child's death was cited, along with a few cases of women who killed abusive husbands. Historically, revenge and honor have both been male provinces; to speak continually and glowingly of how vengeance was great for "human dignity" and "honor" ignores half the population. Rosenbaum makes a half-hearted attempt to distance his noble ideas of revenge from the horrifying honor killings taking place in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and in other communities around the world (including the US), but his objection to this variety of revenge is mainly that it's "disproportionate"--not that, like many of his western examples, it's predicated on the idea that women are the property of their husbands, fathers, and brothers, and that injuries to women are injuries not to them and their human dignity, but to the honor of their male relatives.
While Payback was an interesting read, it was deeply flawed: both in form (circular writing) and in content (inattention to Western-centric bias and underlying misogyny). Read with caution.
September 19, 2013
I was interested in this book because I so enjoyed "Beyond Revenge: The Evolution of the Forgiveness Instinct" and because I think payback is appropriate from time to time. But this was such a disappointment.
Rosenbaum makes an occasional interesting points: "It's more acceptable to confess tohaving a kinky taste for porn than to acknowledge harboring feelings of revenge." [The "having" is not necessary there--one of the book's major problems is bad editing.]
"Retribution is vengeance made respectable, vengeance stripped of emotional commitments and removed from the responsibility of avengers, taken up, instead, by austere and impassioned jurists.... [editing problem again--that should probably be "dispassionate" instead of "impassioned," since "impassioned" people are not austere.] But it is simply not true that human beings have no emotional involvement in how they experience justice."
"The irony is that, despite their archaic appearance, revenge cultures have much in common with ardent free-market capitalists. The inefficiencies and incompetence of controlled economies is the best justification for the free hand of laissez-faire. And here, too, the failure of government to deliver justice consistently provides a justification for individuals to keep their options open when it comes to revenge."
etc.
But it's SO BADLY EDITED--and DOUCHEY when it comes to gender, which is extremely problematic, since he often discusses rape and the way we do and don't pursue vengeance for it. Simone de Beauvoir is referred to as Simone Beauvoir, and also introduced as "French existentialist philosopher, metaphysical novelist, and proto feminist, mostly known for her long-term romantic relationship with Jean Paul Sartre...." REALLY? SERIOUSLY? All her accomplishments are secondary to the fact that she had a relationship with Sartre? That's really a sentence you want to write and publish in 2013?
Or this, in a discussion of trials of the perpetrators of the genocide in Cambodia: "In spite of a bloodied past that could very well have turned into a bloodbath...." No. The "bloodied past" could not turn into a bloodbath--first, it's already past, and second, it WAS a bloodbath! He meant, "In spite of a bloodied past that could very well have LED to a bloodbath."
There were other examples I saw, but those are two I remember, and I don't want to waste much more time on this book. Basically, the writing was shitty, and the book as a whole was extremely bloated, repetitive and dry. It's almost 300 pages long; it should have been under 200. I had to skim it to finish it, and even then it was a slog.
I can't recommend it for anything but its works cited list. It would be better to read the sources Rosenbaum quotes than to read the book he wrote.
Rosenbaum makes an occasional interesting points: "It's more acceptable to confess to
"Retribution is vengeance made respectable, vengeance stripped of emotional commitments and removed from the responsibility of avengers, taken up, instead, by austere and impassioned jurists.... [editing problem again--that should probably be "dispassionate" instead of "impassioned," since "impassioned" people are not austere.] But it is simply not true that human beings have no emotional involvement in how they experience justice."
"The irony is that, despite their archaic appearance, revenge cultures have much in common with ardent free-market capitalists. The inefficiencies and incompetence of controlled economies is the best justification for the free hand of laissez-faire. And here, too, the failure of government to deliver justice consistently provides a justification for individuals to keep their options open when it comes to revenge."
etc.
But it's SO BADLY EDITED--and DOUCHEY when it comes to gender, which is extremely problematic, since he often discusses rape and the way we do and don't pursue vengeance for it. Simone de Beauvoir is referred to as Simone Beauvoir, and also introduced as "French existentialist philosopher, metaphysical novelist, and proto feminist, mostly known for her long-term romantic relationship with Jean Paul Sartre...." REALLY? SERIOUSLY? All her accomplishments are secondary to the fact that she had a relationship with Sartre? That's really a sentence you want to write and publish in 2013?
Or this, in a discussion of trials of the perpetrators of the genocide in Cambodia: "In spite of a bloodied past that could very well have turned into a bloodbath...." No. The "bloodied past" could not turn into a bloodbath--first, it's already past, and second, it WAS a bloodbath! He meant, "In spite of a bloodied past that could very well have LED to a bloodbath."
There were other examples I saw, but those are two I remember, and I don't want to waste much more time on this book. Basically, the writing was shitty, and the book as a whole was extremely bloated, repetitive and dry. It's almost 300 pages long; it should have been under 200. I had to skim it to finish it, and even then it was a slog.
I can't recommend it for anything but its works cited list. It would be better to read the sources Rosenbaum quotes than to read the book he wrote.
October 1, 2020
This book expresses well the way the inappropriately named justice system fails crime victims. The author makes a compelling case that our modern distinction between justice and revenge is both artificial and damaging.
Over the years our society has denigrated the idea of revenge, just deserts, pay back, lex talions, etc as primitive, emotional, even barbaric.
The result is a more unjust society in which crime victims are virtually ignored by the system, unrepresented by cousel, and often watch society release or only lightly punish those who caused them so much suffering.
Mercy is exalted, but not mercy to the victims. Sentencing is based on likelihood of potential future harm not to that which has already occurred. Too often victims are told that the one who victimized them has paid their debt, but the victims are the only ones who truly bear the cost.
I have read other criticisms of this book that there is too much of a male and Western focus here, and if one chooses to view the world through that lens then so be it. But consider the lens of the crime victims in this book: mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, of victims both male and female; who have placed their trust in a system that really doesn't want their input or even presence in its proceesings. In fact the laws of society allow them no other recourse. At every turn they are told their emotions are contrary to the process of law, their loss is not a consideration, their very experience irrelevant and contrary to a concept of justice that no longer values proportional punishment. Indeed, punishment has been set aside in favor of rehabilitation and prevention of future crimes.
This book is a good effort at putting victims and their needs back into the equation of justice by unashamedly addressing the virtue of revenge as a foundational principle of justice.
Over the years our society has denigrated the idea of revenge, just deserts, pay back, lex talions, etc as primitive, emotional, even barbaric.
The result is a more unjust society in which crime victims are virtually ignored by the system, unrepresented by cousel, and often watch society release or only lightly punish those who caused them so much suffering.
Mercy is exalted, but not mercy to the victims. Sentencing is based on likelihood of potential future harm not to that which has already occurred. Too often victims are told that the one who victimized them has paid their debt, but the victims are the only ones who truly bear the cost.
I have read other criticisms of this book that there is too much of a male and Western focus here, and if one chooses to view the world through that lens then so be it. But consider the lens of the crime victims in this book: mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, of victims both male and female; who have placed their trust in a system that really doesn't want their input or even presence in its proceesings. In fact the laws of society allow them no other recourse. At every turn they are told their emotions are contrary to the process of law, their loss is not a consideration, their very experience irrelevant and contrary to a concept of justice that no longer values proportional punishment. Indeed, punishment has been set aside in favor of rehabilitation and prevention of future crimes.
This book is a good effort at putting victims and their needs back into the equation of justice by unashamedly addressing the virtue of revenge as a foundational principle of justice.
November 3, 2022
If this book is the best defense for revenge, then we might as well just call it quits and never revenge anyone, ever again.
Want to know how bad Rosenbaum is at defending payback? To defend the concept of revenge?
I have 8 A4 pages of notes and almost all of it is where he contradicts himself.
5000 words where I write down outlandish statements that he himself contradicts.
There are some things that Rosenbaum bases his case of revenge on:
Firstly, the Talion is a good thing and is the best moral judge of what is just
Which means that pretty much the Bible is the best moral framework we have (hello slavery then?)
Secondly, that no one would act beyond what the Talion states.
Thirdly, it is based on the notion that revenge is morally right, because it feels like it is.
Now, I started reading this book in May, and I have used much more time facepalming than actually reading. Then I used that much time again on shaking my head in puzzlement and wondering if the author actually said what he said and if he even read what he wrote.
Then I have used just as much time thinking about how he said the opposite on the last page, and then said kind of the same thing on the page before, and the opposite again on the page before that.
Now, there are three (well more, but those above where on the top of my head atm) statements that the book needs to prove to show us that revenge can be at least somewhat justified.
Spoiler alert; the author does not.
Hell, he doesn't even try to make a case for revenge being moral, except stating that it is.
So what are some of the contradictions here?
Well, the author tells us that no one (or hardly anyone) goes beyond the talion, since that could start a blood feud and bring down revenge back on you. He even tells us that the talion is ingrained in our society, that it is something that is shown in movies ans so forth.
So what are some of the stories that it brings forth as evidence? Stories like The Punisher, where one guy kills of hundres of others, for the death of two of his loved ones.
So where is the talion, which is based on an eye for an eye, in that?
There are a ton of these examples.
Hell, Rosenbaum even tells us about countries and counties that follow the talion. He talks about the mafia and some countries where and eye for an eye is common.
What do they have in common? Blood feuds! Blood feuds that go on for generation and that in some cases have killed tens of thousands of innocent people in the country the last 20 years!
The thing he says does not happen, happens all the time!
Does the author even acknowledge that? No! He just mentions it, almost as evidence that he is right.
Now, there are some concepts that he throws around, but more shows us his personal feelings, than being a case for revenge.
One of them is that it isn't justice unless the victim feels that they have gotten revenge. That means that the death penalty is okay (which he says does not deter crime, but he then goes to say that revenge might...), but if someone is killed by someone other than the state or the ones that need revenge, that it is not. Though the person doing the revenge might feel they get revenge for some other misdead from their childhood or the likes.
The author also says that justice is about honor and that the punishment needs to fit what your honor demands. No matter what. It cannot be just unless you feel your honor has been restored. But he says that honor killings or maiming your daughter or spouse is wrong.
That after he says that it is right for the father, husband or brother to restore their honor and to defend it. Is this position explained? No.
There are so many bad arguments or just statements without any arguments to back them up, that I could write at least 20 000 words about how this book is silly, should not be read by anyone and deserves scrutiny by all.
Did I mention that he says self-defense, as in protecting your life or the life of someone you love, or just your possessions, in your own house, is just about your honor? Silly you, who thought you were actually trying to not die or loose all you own. No, you just protected your honor.
So if you kill someone who did that five years later, then it is okay! You just restored your honor. Same as with self-defense. The worst part, is that the author could have had a good point in there and there could have been arguments to be made. He just went past them and right into psychopath mode.
But I'm on a tangent again.
The thing is that my comments so far, only have covered a small amount of my notes.
This book is just made in so blatantly bad faith or the author has no self-insight or can't see past his biases, that it would take forever to dissect and find the small nuggets of actual arguments to make a good point to argue against. This thing is just hopeless.
Now, this book could have been 50 pages and still had the same arguments and not have lost a single thing. Hell, it could probably have been even shorter.
I'm also sure I could have created much better arguments for why revenge should be a thing, or at least entertained as an alternative, than the author did. I could create much better points and without contradicting myself on every single page and with every single example.
Just removing those contradictions would have removed 10% of the book and a lot of contradictions. Don't show examples that show how extremely wrong you are and say that they prove you right. Anyone that can count can see it.
So, you might have read this and you are asking yourself: Why does this book get 2 stars and not one?
Well, there are a couple of reasons.
First, it made me think. It is silly in how dumb the author makes himself seem, but the concept as a whole is interesting. It also shows you all the arguments for why revenge always escalates, while arguing that his examples that show extreme escalation, do not escalate.
Secondly he has some good points at some point. Most of them are hidden or are right at the end of the book. Even those good points are not what I would call great arguments, since he ruins them with his contradictions, badly articulated and made arguments and so forth. Still, they are there.
So the second reason points back to the first. It makes you think.
Now, hopefully I will never have to pick up this book again and I will never read anything else that Thane Rosebaum ever writes. Any man that would argue that him touching the wall and getting paint on his hand shows that the wall has never been painted, does not deserve any attention from anyone.
6 months it took me to get through this idiocracy! 6 months it ruined the fun of reading!
Want to know how bad Rosenbaum is at defending payback? To defend the concept of revenge?
I have 8 A4 pages of notes and almost all of it is where he contradicts himself.
5000 words where I write down outlandish statements that he himself contradicts.
There are some things that Rosenbaum bases his case of revenge on:
Firstly, the Talion is a good thing and is the best moral judge of what is just
Which means that pretty much the Bible is the best moral framework we have (hello slavery then?)
Secondly, that no one would act beyond what the Talion states.
Thirdly, it is based on the notion that revenge is morally right, because it feels like it is.
Now, I started reading this book in May, and I have used much more time facepalming than actually reading. Then I used that much time again on shaking my head in puzzlement and wondering if the author actually said what he said and if he even read what he wrote.
Then I have used just as much time thinking about how he said the opposite on the last page, and then said kind of the same thing on the page before, and the opposite again on the page before that.
Now, there are three (well more, but those above where on the top of my head atm) statements that the book needs to prove to show us that revenge can be at least somewhat justified.
Spoiler alert; the author does not.
Hell, he doesn't even try to make a case for revenge being moral, except stating that it is.
So what are some of the contradictions here?
Well, the author tells us that no one (or hardly anyone) goes beyond the talion, since that could start a blood feud and bring down revenge back on you. He even tells us that the talion is ingrained in our society, that it is something that is shown in movies ans so forth.
So what are some of the stories that it brings forth as evidence? Stories like The Punisher, where one guy kills of hundres of others, for the death of two of his loved ones.
So where is the talion, which is based on an eye for an eye, in that?
There are a ton of these examples.
Hell, Rosenbaum even tells us about countries and counties that follow the talion. He talks about the mafia and some countries where and eye for an eye is common.
What do they have in common? Blood feuds! Blood feuds that go on for generation and that in some cases have killed tens of thousands of innocent people in the country the last 20 years!
The thing he says does not happen, happens all the time!
Does the author even acknowledge that? No! He just mentions it, almost as evidence that he is right.
Now, there are some concepts that he throws around, but more shows us his personal feelings, than being a case for revenge.
One of them is that it isn't justice unless the victim feels that they have gotten revenge. That means that the death penalty is okay (which he says does not deter crime, but he then goes to say that revenge might...), but if someone is killed by someone other than the state or the ones that need revenge, that it is not. Though the person doing the revenge might feel they get revenge for some other misdead from their childhood or the likes.
The author also says that justice is about honor and that the punishment needs to fit what your honor demands. No matter what. It cannot be just unless you feel your honor has been restored. But he says that honor killings or maiming your daughter or spouse is wrong.
That after he says that it is right for the father, husband or brother to restore their honor and to defend it. Is this position explained? No.
There are so many bad arguments or just statements without any arguments to back them up, that I could write at least 20 000 words about how this book is silly, should not be read by anyone and deserves scrutiny by all.
Did I mention that he says self-defense, as in protecting your life or the life of someone you love, or just your possessions, in your own house, is just about your honor? Silly you, who thought you were actually trying to not die or loose all you own. No, you just protected your honor.
So if you kill someone who did that five years later, then it is okay! You just restored your honor. Same as with self-defense. The worst part, is that the author could have had a good point in there and there could have been arguments to be made. He just went past them and right into psychopath mode.
But I'm on a tangent again.
The thing is that my comments so far, only have covered a small amount of my notes.
This book is just made in so blatantly bad faith or the author has no self-insight or can't see past his biases, that it would take forever to dissect and find the small nuggets of actual arguments to make a good point to argue against. This thing is just hopeless.
Now, this book could have been 50 pages and still had the same arguments and not have lost a single thing. Hell, it could probably have been even shorter.
I'm also sure I could have created much better arguments for why revenge should be a thing, or at least entertained as an alternative, than the author did. I could create much better points and without contradicting myself on every single page and with every single example.
Just removing those contradictions would have removed 10% of the book and a lot of contradictions. Don't show examples that show how extremely wrong you are and say that they prove you right. Anyone that can count can see it.
So, you might have read this and you are asking yourself: Why does this book get 2 stars and not one?
Well, there are a couple of reasons.
First, it made me think. It is silly in how dumb the author makes himself seem, but the concept as a whole is interesting. It also shows you all the arguments for why revenge always escalates, while arguing that his examples that show extreme escalation, do not escalate.
Secondly he has some good points at some point. Most of them are hidden or are right at the end of the book. Even those good points are not what I would call great arguments, since he ruins them with his contradictions, badly articulated and made arguments and so forth. Still, they are there.
So the second reason points back to the first. It makes you think.
Now, hopefully I will never have to pick up this book again and I will never read anything else that Thane Rosebaum ever writes. Any man that would argue that him touching the wall and getting paint on his hand shows that the wall has never been painted, does not deserve any attention from anyone.
6 months it took me to get through this idiocracy! 6 months it ruined the fun of reading!
November 19, 2013
The book starts with an interesting premise: revenge is a key component of human emotion and morality and, thus, should have a home in a just legal system. The author expertly weaves together law, pop culture, history, and literature to make a case for the proper role of revenge. His general recommendations are (1) expanding the role of victims to co-prosecutors - empowering them to conduct opening statements and examinations, (2) increase the 'impact' of victim impact statements, (3) enact revenge statutes, and (4) give victims participatory and veto power over plea bargains.
He's clearly writing for a popular audience and not to persuade the legal community. What I kept waiting for was for him to support his sweeping statements and conclusions with facts or hypothetical reasoning. I would have also appreciated an explanation of exactly what a legal system would look like under his prescription, but he kind of just casually hand-waves when he gets to that part and leaves it to the imagination.
The big critique is that this book really should have only been about 4 chapters. The entire meat is in chapters 1, 5, 7, and 8. The rest seems to have been added to fill page minimum. Also, a good copy editor was necessary. Typos aren't serious issues, but they're distracting, and the book has several in each chapter.
He's clearly writing for a popular audience and not to persuade the legal community. What I kept waiting for was for him to support his sweeping statements and conclusions with facts or hypothetical reasoning. I would have also appreciated an explanation of exactly what a legal system would look like under his prescription, but he kind of just casually hand-waves when he gets to that part and leaves it to the imagination.
The big critique is that this book really should have only been about 4 chapters. The entire meat is in chapters 1, 5, 7, and 8. The rest seems to have been added to fill page minimum. Also, a good copy editor was necessary. Typos aren't serious issues, but they're distracting, and the book has several in each chapter.
September 29, 2018
While the philosophical idea at the heart of this book is one I endorse, the author is not as philosophically rigorous as I would prefer him to be (for example, in his failures to distinguish individual as opposed to collective punishments or to clarify how to balance the right of oppressed individuals and groups of people to revenge with due process and justice for those accused of crimes) and often repeats the same points essentially over and over without adding anything important to them in the process.
December 23, 2023
I agree with many of the criticisms other reviewers have raised against Payback. The book is highly repetitive, poorly edited, and myopically centered around the experiences of white men. I would only recommend this book to people who are deeply interested in the topic, and even then, I would recommend that they skim. Reading the first and last chapters would probably be sufficient to understand Rosenbaum's most interesting arguments.
This book could easily have been cut to half the length, maybe less. Rosenbaum sometimes uses ten examples when two or three would do--I do not think that I am exaggerating. Rosenbaum repeats the same arguments numerous times, often more than once within the same chapter, and yet often fails to make his position clearer, or to address obvious counters to his position. A "good parts" version would be rewarding, but following Rosenbaum through every turn of his argument is exhausting and unnecessary.
Other reviewers have explained why this book is misogynistic; I was also bothered by Rosenbaum's total failure to discuss race and class. Since Rosenbaum ultimately advocates policies which, if effected, would increase the severity of legal punishments, it's a serious problem for his position that these policies would disproportionately harm poor people of color in the justice system. He never even refers to the racism and classism which is endemic to the American justice system, nor addresses the implications of his arguments for the war on drugs. He advocates the death penalty without engaging the most powerful arguments for its abolition. I found his argument persuasive to the extent that I believe there would be some value in creating a more vindictive legal system, but he totally failed to convince me that these gains would be worth the damage.
Rosenbaum sometimes leaves out salient information which would his argument. He claimed that each of the states involved in the DC Sniper murders chose to prosecute the sniper separately *specifically because* they wanted him to be convicted in the name of their own citizens. In reality, they prosecuted him multiple times to increase the chances that he would receive the death penalty, a fact which undermines the point Rosenbaum was making in that section. His discussion of Bernie Goetz also leaves out information which makes Goetz's actions seem less reasonable. Take everything Rosenbaum says with a grain of salt, and do your own research on any information which you consider particularly important.
Ultimately, I am glad that I read this book. I've made annotations throughout, and I look forward to going back through my notes and revisiting the sections which I found especially interesting and useful. Although he does not make his case in the clearest way, Rosenbaum makes a valuable and emotionally compelling case for revenge.
This book could easily have been cut to half the length, maybe less. Rosenbaum sometimes uses ten examples when two or three would do--I do not think that I am exaggerating. Rosenbaum repeats the same arguments numerous times, often more than once within the same chapter, and yet often fails to make his position clearer, or to address obvious counters to his position. A "good parts" version would be rewarding, but following Rosenbaum through every turn of his argument is exhausting and unnecessary.
Other reviewers have explained why this book is misogynistic; I was also bothered by Rosenbaum's total failure to discuss race and class. Since Rosenbaum ultimately advocates policies which, if effected, would increase the severity of legal punishments, it's a serious problem for his position that these policies would disproportionately harm poor people of color in the justice system. He never even refers to the racism and classism which is endemic to the American justice system, nor addresses the implications of his arguments for the war on drugs. He advocates the death penalty without engaging the most powerful arguments for its abolition. I found his argument persuasive to the extent that I believe there would be some value in creating a more vindictive legal system, but he totally failed to convince me that these gains would be worth the damage.
Rosenbaum sometimes leaves out salient information which would his argument. He claimed that each of the states involved in the DC Sniper murders chose to prosecute the sniper separately *specifically because* they wanted him to be convicted in the name of their own citizens. In reality, they prosecuted him multiple times to increase the chances that he would receive the death penalty, a fact which undermines the point Rosenbaum was making in that section. His discussion of Bernie Goetz also leaves out information which makes Goetz's actions seem less reasonable. Take everything Rosenbaum says with a grain of salt, and do your own research on any information which you consider particularly important.
Ultimately, I am glad that I read this book. I've made annotations throughout, and I look forward to going back through my notes and revisiting the sections which I found especially interesting and useful. Although he does not make his case in the clearest way, Rosenbaum makes a valuable and emotionally compelling case for revenge.
June 25, 2013
The author makes an interesting argument here, certainly worth thinking about. He drew on a lot of sources, from contemporary criminal cases to classical works of psychology to Bible stories. The writing, however, was quite dry, and short as the book was, it took me a long time to finish it. 3.5, rounded up to 4.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews