This chapter drills deeply into the compelling reconstruction that equates the purpose of punitive damages with “retribution and deterrence.” It articulates a justificatory account of the retributive character of punitive damages that responds to the relational significance of the role the victim plays in expressing condemnation and to the importance of maintaining institutional modes of moral communication for value affirmation between the private parties involved in tortious situations. The main argument is that retribution in torts is relational. Relational Retribution offers a holistic account of retribution that recognizes the necessary interconnection between the reprehensible character of the defendant’s conduct as deserving of punishment and the rich correlative retributive motivations of the victim of seriously disrespectful actions seeking the imposition of the punitive award. This relational approach transcends the unilateral focus on the reprehensibility of the defendant’s behavior and the notion of “just deserts” for the imposition of a monetary sanction. Alternative motives for retribution such as “denunciation” and “value affirmation” often more accurately explain the victim’s resolve. Because of the centrality of proportionality in any retributive theory of punishment, the chapter ends by sketching out the principle of sanction proportionality under the framework of Relational Retribution.

This chapter takes up the traditional view that compensatory categories of remedies, such as nonpecuniary damages and aggravated damages, can satisfactorily perform the function of vindicating the victim’s dignitary interests without appealing to notions of punishment and retribution. While these arguments may seem attractive on the surface, this chapter reveals the ways by which reducing punishment to compensation not only overlooks the significance of the victim’s perspective but also fundamentally impairs both the expressive dimension of sanctions and the proper determination of proportionality. The chapter explains the importance of delineating punishment and compensation as independent and distinctive responses to wrongdoing and why the distinctions demand differentiated assessment.