The force of the retaliatory imperative might be likened to a rushing river, which, if blocked, readily finds an alternative course. In the real world, it is not always possible for victims to retaliate against the person who wronged them. The guilty party may be unknown, elusive, or possess too much coercive power. Or the victim may be too angry or otherwise impatient to delay action long enough to strike back against the wrongdoer. Wherever such conditions prevail, victims may be tempted to dissipate their mounting desire for retribution by attacking an innocent third party, thereby engaging in so-called imperfect retaliation.

Imperfect retaliation plays a crucial role in the contagious spread of inner-city violence. In attacking someone other than the guilty party, victims provoke additional disputes that cannot be justified by the logic of retribution. And because such attacks are unjustified, they are likely to provoke defiance on the part of the newly created victims, who end up wanting their own revenge. That revenge may be directed against their attacker, against the person who attacked their attacker (thereby setting in motion the train of events that led to their victimization), or against yet another innocent third party.

The existence of displaced aggression is well established in the social psychological literature (see, for example, Pederson et al. 2000). Its driving force is captured by the adage, “If you can't beat ‘em, beat someone else.”