What is a Response to Wrongdoing?

This article starts from the assumption that to properly assess the merits of “response retributivism”, we must first clarify the natureof a response to wrongdoing and how it differs from a mere reaction. I propose a communicative account of responses, arguing that a response to wrongdoing is a distinctive form of action motivated by the wrong, whose special feature is that it is addressed to the wrongdoer, has a confrontational-communicative dimension, and needs to be identified by the wrongdoer as a response to his wrong. I argue that this definition allows us to rethink the concept of responsibility, to make progress on the debate whether there is a duty to respond or react to wrongdoing, and to refocus the discussion toward what Strawson calls “reactive practices” as opposed to “reactive attitudes”.