Top-Rated Free Essay
Preview

Just Desserts

Better Essays
892 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Just Desserts
Just Deserts The concept of “just deserts” can be most effectively described in the writings of Andrew Von Hirsch. Basically those who commit crime deserve to be punished and by punishing them it may prevent further crimes from being committed (Siegel, 2012). There have been many different positions on this theory of just deserts. Some argue against while others strongly defend the effectiveness of this theory. We will look at both sides of the argument and review the pros and cons of each.
The main rationale behind this theory is that committing a crime is wrong therefore a person should be punished for the crime they committed. For some this “eye for an eye” attitude bares a close resemblance to vengeance. Of course this is not the goal of the criminal justice system. Vengeance has no place within the criminal justice system. Therefore, the criminal justice system looks at the crime that was committed rather than the person involved in the crime (Sullivan, 2007). So, essentially we are deciding on the punishment by the severity of the crime committed with no regard to the individual who committed the act. We decide on the punishment according to how much harm was done (McKee, 2007). Unfortunately, this theory disregards other factors that are present which include the circumstances surrounding the crime. Perhaps it is because of this reason that many scholars disagree with the just desert doctrine.
The goals of the criminal justice system are retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation (Wald, 2001). Unfortunately, retribution in many cases is the only goal that is really accomplished by some of the harsh punishments that are handed down under the “just deserts” doctrine. Deterrence may be accomplished by deterring others from committing the same crime; however it often fails to deter the offender that was punished. One report showed that within three years 24.2% of convicted offenders were reconvicted of a new crime after their release (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011). This data clearly shows that even when the offender receives their “just deserts” it fails to deter them from committing another crime. Perhaps it is better to determine the proper punishment not only according to the crime but also the person who committed the crime.
Although there are many arguments against the effectiveness of the just deserts doctrine this does not mean that in any way it should be abandoned. If a person commits a crime, especially one that is heinous in nature, they should definitely receive a punishment that fits the crime. We must consider that for many crimes this doctrine is appropriate. For instance, just deserts bring about a sense of equality or fairness to the sentencing aspect of criminal justice. Many states base their sentencing guidelines primarily on the just deserts sentencing theory (Frase, 1997). With this being said it would be extremely hard to argue that the just deserts theory should be completely left in the dust.
There are pros and cons when considering this theory as there are with any theory. I strongly believe that there are aspects of the just desert theory that need to remain unchanged. However, I also believe that we are approaching a new modern time where doctrines that have been used throughout history need to be revised. We now have more understanding of the circumstances that surround some crimes. I feel that there is a need to ensure that the punishment does fit the crime that was committed. It is also my belief that every case is different and some factors need to be considered.
Perhaps it would be more effective to reinvent or even combine past, present, and future theories into a “hybrid” theory. By doing this we can accomplish the many goals set out by the criminal justice system. I feel that offenders need not only punishment but also rehabilitation in many cases in order to decrease the rate of recidivism. We must look at the big picture rather than just a small section. Our prisons are continually being overcrowded and often times by offenders that no longer pose a threat to society. Also, there are cases of criminals receiving a punishment that does not fit the crime. So, by reinventing the just desert theory and shaping it into a more modern theory that is a better fit for our time it may be possible to make sentencing practices more effective.

References
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2011). Recidivism rates of prisoners. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=datool&surl=/recidivism/index.cfm#
Frase, R. S. (1997). Sentencing principles in theory and practice. Crime and Justice. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1147577
Haist, M. (2009). Deterrence in a sea of "just deserts": are utilitarian goals achievable in a world of limiting retributivism? Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 99(3), p. 789-821.
Just Desserts. (n.d.) West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved January 25 2013 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Just+Desserts
McKee, A. J. (2007). Justice. Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment. doi:10.4135/9781412950664
Siegel, L. J. (2012). Criminology (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Sullivan, L. E. (2007). Just desert. Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment. doi:10.4135/9781412950664
Wald, P. M. (2001). Why focus on women offenders? Criminal Justice Magazine, 16(1). Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_magazine_home/crimjust_cjmag_16_1_wald.html

References: Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2011). Recidivism rates of prisoners. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=datool&surl=/recidivism/index.cfm# Frase, R. S. (1997). Sentencing principles in theory and practice. Crime and Justice. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1147577 Haist, M. (2009). Deterrence in a sea of "just deserts": are utilitarian goals achievable in a world of limiting retributivism? Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 99(3), p. 789-821. Just Desserts. (n.d.) West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved January 25 2013 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Just+Desserts McKee, A. J. (2007). Justice. Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment. doi:10.4135/9781412950664 Siegel, L. J. (2012). Criminology (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Sullivan, L. E. (2007). Just desert. Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment. doi:10.4135/9781412950664 Wald, P. M. (2001). Why focus on women offenders? Criminal Justice Magazine, 16(1). Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_magazine_home/crimjust_cjmag_16_1_wald.html

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • 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
  • Good Essays

    Is a mandatory, life-without-parole sentence just in such circumstances? Remember that “just” may or may not be the same as “constitutional.” Summarize both the pros an...…

    • 606 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Sentences for crimes committed have been handed down for as long as there have been crimes to commit. There are many factors to be considered by the judge tasked with sentencing in a criminal case, including an offender’s criminal history and actual involvement in the commission of the offense. First-time offenders may be grated leniency in sentencing, but it can be argued that such a practice is contrary to the nature of punishment and detracts from the effects of the crime on the victims. Punishment serves three general purposes that serve to benefit the victim, the public, and the offender: retribution, prevention, and rehabilitation.…

    • 951 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
  • 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

    Week 3

    • 734 Words
    • 3 Pages

    For many years, the goal for sentencing was restoration. Today’s notion of restorative justice has several concepts that identify needs. Three of the concepts are as follow (1) the need to compensate victims, (2) the need to place appropriate responsibility on the criminal offender,…

    • 734 Words
    • 3 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

    Goals Of Sentencing

    • 626 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The sentencing phase of the criminal justice process is where a guilty offender is sanctioned for his conduct. The goals of sentencing include retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and incapacitation. Historically the primary goal has varied by criminal justice era and the crime committed. However, each sentencing goal has a specific purpose (Masters, et al., 2017). The sentencing goal of retribution is normally pursued in heinous crime cases. Its aim is to castigate the offender. In contrast, rehabilitation is a sentencing goal that seeks to correct offender conduct, by teaching offenders, skills that aid in the prevention of recidivism. On the other hand, the sentencing goal of deterrence seeks to discourage future criminality by way of…

    • 626 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Retribution offers a path to criminals who are unable to rejoin society or change the person they are, as well as providing peace to those damaged or hurt by convicts. Retribution provides a sense of security knowing justice has been delivered. In turn, retribution reinforces the idea that crimes have serious punishment and those who have the potential to commit crimes may follow the same paths if they do not learn from others…

    • 856 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Richard Brandt

    • 1471 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Chapter two in our book Philosophical Perspectives on Punishment covers different philosopher’s views on Rule Utilitarianism and how it is applied to misconduct and unlawful acts. In Richard Brandt’s discussion he raises three questions that should be addressed when identifying our American system of punishment. What is justifiable punishment for a criminals past actions? What are good principles of punishment? What defenses should be used as good excuses to keep someone from being punished?…

    • 1471 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    In his book” Should we Execute Those Who Deserve to Die?” Stephen Nathanson defines what he calls “argument from desert” the reasoning that “murderers deserve to die and therefore that the state ought to execute them”. He also proposes two statements, and explains that if one of the two statements could be established, then the argument from desert fails (Nathanson, 1987). In my essay, I will assess and establish one of the statements that Nathanson proposes to invalidate the argument from desert.…

    • 1328 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Just Dessert

    • 814 Words
    • 4 Pages

    When researching just dessert I found three particular arguments in favor of the just dessert theory. The first argument is that the punishment should be the same for all offenders based on the crime they committed. This is considered to be fair and justified punishment because it is deserving of the crime committed. The second argument supports that just dessert encompasses fair treatment both to the vulnerable in society and victims rather than just the offenders. This allows the victims of crimes to know what type of justice they can expect. And finally the third argument believes that the just desert theory is the best way to explain the death penalty for murder because if an offender takes a life they would understand and expect that their punishment would be a sentence of death.…

    • 814 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Capital Punishment

    • 1406 Words
    • 6 Pages

    In Martin Perlmutter's essay "Desert and Capital Punishment," he attempts to illustrate that social utility is a poor method of evaluating the legitimacy of it. Perlmutter claims that a punishment must be "backward looking," meaning that it is based on a past wrongdoing. A utilitarian justification of capital punishment strays from the definition of the term "punishment" because it is "forward looking." An argument for social utility maintains that the death penalty should result in a greater good and the consequences must outweigh the harm, thereby increasing overall happiness in the world. Perlmutter recognizes the three potential benefits of a punishment as the rehabilitation of an offender, protection for other possible victims, and deterring other people from committing the same crime. The death penalty…

    • 1406 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good 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
  • Good Essays

    “This failure of the theory to provide a basis for supporting the death penalty reveals an important gap in proportional retributivism. It shows that while the theory is general in scope, it does not yield any specific recommendations regarding punishment. It tells us that armed robbery should be punished more severely than embezzling and less severely than murder, but it does not tell us how much to punish any of these,” (Nathanson, An Eye for an Eye). By not giving us specific punishments for specific actions, but continuing on to say that the highest punishment allowed to be given is a life sentence in prison, is enough to completely dismisses the death penalty and also make itself almost unusable due to lack of clarity.…

    • 124 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays