Stanford Humanities Center
Serena Zhou grew up in Beijing, China. She is interested in the intersection of law, philosophy, and bioscience. Her current work focuses on interrogating the theory and practice of criminal punishment. During her time interning at the public defender’s office, she has seen how blame, stigma, and moral exclusion can contribute to a cycle of trauma. Beyond research, she serves as co-president of the Stanford Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and Director of Publishing at the Stanford Undergraduate Law Review. She is also a visual artist with a particular interest in oil painting and portraiture. In her spare time, Serena enjoys going on adventures in San Francisco or hosting movie nights with her friends.
SHC Project
From Retribution to Forgiveness: Justifying Punishment Through Relational Egalitarianism
Advisor: Michael E. Bratman
What is the focus of your current research?
My thesis explores the philosophical justification of criminal punishment. I argue that the dominant frameworks of retributivism and consequentialism are seriously flawed in their lack of respect for both victims and perpetrators of crime. As such, I propose a new justification for criminal punishment grounded in the state’s concern for relational equality. I argue that this framework avoids the reactive blame advocated by retributivism while recognizing crime as a form of interpersonal domination.
What drew you to this topic?
I was initially drawn to my topic through the way that neuroscience could potentially impact our concept of criminal responsibility. However, as my research evolved, I realized that my major qualms instead lay with the ideals of retribution and penal desert. Furthermore, as someone who has experienced interpersonal violence, I felt that existing frameworks of punishment too often obscured or attempted to speak for victims. As such, I shifted my focus to expressing a positive view of punishment that is grounded in the state’s concern for ensuring that citizens can relate to one another as equals.
How are you conducting your research?
So far, the majority of my research has revolved around the existing literature surrounding the philosophy of punishment. I have engaged extensively with theorists defending retributivism, which is the view that punishment is permissible because wrongdoers morally deserve to suffer in proportion to their wrongdoings. I have also explored scholarship addressing the intersection of behavioral science and law, particularly focusing on studies surrounding the relationship between moral blame and effective rehabilitation.
What would people be surprised to learn about the topic you are working on?
At first glance, retributivism appeared to me as a relatively “barbaric” or “primitive” form of thinking. I was surprised to discover that retributivism actually experienced a resurgence in the late 1980s as a more progressive and humane justification for punishment. This resurgence emerged in response to the indefinite institutionalization and paternalistic treatment brought about by the ideal of rehabilitation. I think this historical context is essential for understanding why retributivism can be so compelling. Only then can we refine our understanding of punishment to do away with retribution.
In your view, why is it valuable to study this topic?
By definition, criminal punishment necessitates the systematic infliction of harm or burdensome treatment on our fellow citizens. As a result, this practice requires robust philosophical justification. Overall, I find the rationale for punishment ethically significant because it determines the worst possible form of violence that our society condones. Ultimately, I believe that our commitment to the idea that all human beings have equal moral worth must be reflected in our penal institutions.
How is your honors thesis impacting you academically and/or personally?
I think it is a great privilege to dedicate so much of my time to something intellectually exciting, and my honors thesis has made my academic work feel more sustainable and stimulating. Furthermore, intellectually grappling with my own punitive instincts has profoundly changed how I view wrongdoing at an interpersonal level. While it is hard to do away with the emotional components of blame, I now find myself more inclined to achieve forgiveness and mutual understanding.
How do you anticipate the fellowship will be able to support your research?
I think the Hume fellowship has brought together a wonderful cohort of individuals who can morally support and intellectually challenge me in my research. Philosophical work relies heavily upon moral intuitions, which must be tested against a wide range of subjective experiences.
