Preview

Just Desert

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
902 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Just Desert
Introduction
The concept of criminal choice has brought about the creation of policies referred to a just desert. The just desert theory is a practical concept that purports a punishment is needed to preserve the social equity disturbed by crime; however, the level of punishment should be fitting with the crime. The Just desert model suggests that retribution justifies punishment because individuals deserve what they received for past deeds, but punishment based on deterrence is wrong because it involves an offender’s future actions, which cannot be predicted. Under the just desert theory the punishment should be the same for all people who commit the same crime.
Arguments in favor of just desert
Simons (2000) makes a persuasive argument for just desert punishment presenting three somewhat concrete arguments in favor of just desert. The first argument is that the theory is fair to the offender in that the punishment fits the crime; same punishment of all offenders for the same crime, etc. The model does not allow punishment of the innocent in order to serve a large social good which is referred to as the utilitarian theory. Just desert does not authorize selecting a criminal for particularly cruel punishment by lottery or some other random drawing, even if this would expend fewer overall social resources than imposing lower and proportionate punishment on all similar offenders, which is referred to as the consequentiality theory. More generally, proponents of the theory would not permit ideal punishment of a criminal that is unequal to his or her just deserts, even if this would serve as an important deterrent function or would placate community fury (Simons, 2000).
Basically, retributivists would place important restrictions on the state’s capability to encourage social welfare at the expenditure of equality to the individual defendant. Therefore, it is fair to the offender, and prevent a punishment that did not fit the crime committed (Simons, 2000)



References: Foley, M. (2006). Toward Understanding the Death Penalty Debate. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/choice/content/essay.cfm Simons, K. (2000). On equality, bias crimes, and just deserts. Retrieved March 29, 2008, from http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/scholarship/workingpapers/abstracts/2000/pdf_files/SimonsK091900.pdf Singer, R. (1978). If Favor of Presumptive Sentences Set by a Sentencing Commission. Retrieved March 28, 2008, from http://cad.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/24/4/401

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    Appendix B

    • 667 Words
    • 3 Pages

    | |Preliminary 2009 statistics indicate that violent crime in the |It is also possible for results to be biased by a lack of| |…

    • 667 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    In Chapter 5 of the textbook, the author examines retributive justice from the standpoint of the means of punishment (Section 5.2). He calls attention to the length of prison sentences and, in particular, the issue of mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders.…

    • 606 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Source: Reprinted from The Limits of the Criminal Sanction by Herbert L. Packer, with the permission of the publishers, Stanford University Press. ( 1968 by Herbert L. Packer.…

    • 8205 Words
    • 33 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    a general system of punishment, the punishment of specific persons, and the specific type (and amount) of punishment to be imposed in a given scenario (Duff). With respect to the first component, which he called the “general justifying aim” of the system of punishment (Duff), there are several purposes for instituting a penal system; the most common of which are general deterrence, specific deterrence, incarceration/incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retribution. While it is easy to see how each of these can be beneficial and justify the general punishment system in the abstract, upon closer examination the existence of multiple underlying justifications…

    • 930 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    The criminal justice system has many objectives which it intends to achieve through various punishments. One such objective is to deter social deviants by threatening them with the possibility of facing harsh punishment to pay for their crimes (Ferris & Stein, 2016). The criminal justice system also achieves retribution by responding to crime by retaliating or revenging the crime. The criminal justice system also incapacitates social deviants so as to protect members of the society through imprisonment or execution in some cases. Additionally, the system also intends to rehabilitate criminals so as to encourage them to refrain from socially deviant…

    • 1239 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    10. What are the 4 utilitarian justifications for punishment? Deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation and specific deterrence…

    • 1280 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Just Deserts

    • 2084 Words
    • 9 Pages

    Since the dawn of time retributive justice in the form of "Let the punishment fit the crime" has been the principle guiding the penalties handed out for various criminal acts, or at least what was defined by the society and the time as a criminal act.…

    • 2084 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Philosophy Of Sentencing

    • 851 Words
    • 4 Pages

    This paper is written in an attempt to comprehend the sentencing philosophy and purpose of criminal punishment through a review of the historical parameters concerning how sentencing and punishment serve society. Sentencing is the application of justice and the end result of a criminal conviction which is applied by the convening authority; followed by the sentence, or judgement of the court on a convicted offender. What makes punishment unique to our society is the application of our moral or ethical beliefs as a whole, and by the population at large. Throughout history, the sentencing and administration of punishments have been swift, brutal and often times ending with the death of the offender, but in our more civilized and modern society,…

    • 851 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    According to James Rachels, he concluded the criminal justice system should be designed along the lines of retributivism, in much the way it currently is. Rachels comes to the conclusion the overall goal of punishment should be retributivism by examining the four requirements necessary for punishment. The four requirements for punishment are guilt, equal treatment, proportionality, and excuses. These requirements mean only the guilty get punished, each criminal who commits the same crime gets roughly the same punishment, the punishment is proportionate to the crime, and if provided a legit excuse, then no punishment is given. Rachels also argues that deterrence and rehabilitation do not meet the requirements, but retributivism does.…

    • 581 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Texas and the Death Penalty

    • 5887 Words
    • 24 Pages

    PUBLICITY AND MURDER IN HOUSTON, TEXAS. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 94(2), 351-379. Retrieved February 16, 2010, from ProQuest Sociology…

    • 5887 Words
    • 24 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The death penalty is a legal process whereby a person is put to death as a punishment for a crime. The death penalties are usually carried out for retribution of a heinous murder committed, such as aggravated murder, felony killing or contract killing. Every state handles what method they want to use to put a person to death according to their state laws. The death penalty is given by lethal injection, electrocution; gas chamber firing squad and hanging are some of the ways that certain states may carry out their death penalty procedures. I will present some views and personal opinion dealing with the pros and cons of the death penalty. The death penalty is such a life altering subject that affects all parties’ lives that are involved in the death penalty process. I personally have mixed feeling about the death penalty. I don’t know really if I would be a person that would support the death penalty or not. I do feel that murdering someone is wrong, and since no one really close to me has never been murdered. I don’t know if my feeling would change as being a supporter for the death penalty or not. I can only pray that God will help this county to make the right choices when comes to life or death.…

    • 1636 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Radelet, Michael L. & Borg, Marian J. (2000). The Changing Nature of Death Penalty Debates.…

    • 883 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Criminal sentencing in America has long been guided by one of several different major philosophies of punishment, including retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation (Spohn, 2000). Retributive sentences involve punishments intended to exact revenge, in line with the biblical idea of “an eye for an eye.” This is based on the belief that some behaviors are unconditionally wrong and therefore justified of punishment. From this perspective, sentences should be equal with the harm done to society. Deterrence, on the other hand, involves a more practical basis for sentencing. It is based on the concept that crime is easily chosen as the result of a rational cost-benefit examination. Individuals will engage in crime when the benefits…

    • 159 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    V. Wright, Ph.D., The Sentencing Project, Deterrence in Criminal Justice, Evaluating Certainty vs. Severity of Punishment, Retrieved April 16, 2012 from http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/Deterrence%20Briefing%20.pdf…

    • 976 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The death penalty is a major topic for debate Shannon Rafferty defends in her portfolio published by Penn State entitled “Death Penalty Persuasive Essay.” She believes the penalty should be allowed because it functions as a deterrent, it provides society retribution and it is morally just. Olivia H. disagrees with use of the death penalty in her essay “Capital Punishment Is Dead wrong.” She tells about the risk of punishing the innocent, and how the states are doing irreversible acts of crime. As the authors disagree about whether the death penalty should be allowed, they have some common ground when it comes to admitting the potential for human error and in both disagreeing to the use of barbaric punishments by the government.…

    • 413 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays