Just deserts theory of punishment. Just Desert: The Fair Punishment Debacle 2022-11-07
Just deserts theory of punishment Rating:
9,4/10
939
reviews
The "just deserts" theory of punishment is a retributive approach to criminal justice that posits that individuals who commit a wrongdoing deserve to be punished in proportion to the severity of their offense. This theory is based on the principle of moral desert, which states that people should be held responsible for their actions and receive what they deserve as a result.
According to the just deserts theory, punishment should be meted out based on the severity of the crime and the moral blameworthiness of the offender. This means that more serious offenses, such as murder, should be punished more severely than less serious offenses, such as petty theft. Similarly, offenders who show a high level of moral blameworthiness, such as those who commit crimes with premeditation or malice, should be punished more severely than those who act recklessly or under duress.
One of the main arguments in favor of the just deserts theory is that it provides a clear and fair system of punishment. By linking the severity of the punishment to the severity of the crime, the just deserts theory ensures that offenders are held accountable for their actions and that the punishment fits the crime. This can help to deter future crime by demonstrating the consequences of breaking the law and by providing a sense of justice for victims and their families.
Another argument in favor of the just deserts theory is that it promotes moral responsibility and respect for the rule of law. By holding individuals accountable for their actions, the just deserts theory encourages people to take responsibility for their behavior and to consider the impact of their actions on others. It also reinforces the importance of upholding the law and respecting the rights of others, which can help to maintain social order and stability.
However, the just deserts theory also has its critics. Some argue that it is too narrow in its focus on punishment and fails to consider the broader social and economic factors that may contribute to crime. Others argue that it is overly punitive and fails to take into account the possibility of rehabilitation or redemption.
Overall, the just deserts theory of punishment is a widely debated approach to criminal justice that is based on the principle of moral desert and the belief that offenders should be punished in proportion to the severity of their crimes. While it has its supporters, it also has its detractors, and the debate over its effectiveness and fairness is likely to continue for some time.
What Is Just Desert Theory?
When Moses brought forth the tablets of the Ten Commandments, they became more of a basic guideline for responsible societal behavior rather than a religious ideal. It is, of course, quite possible in this case that the family will receive substantial compensation as the result of civil claims that they might file against the Minneapolis police. Common ground But evaluations of correctional treatment show it doesn't consistently prevent or reduce crime. The dialogue is both a jibe at justice and at what we have come to believe is the war against good and evil. Of course, care should be taken that the punishment does not exceed the guilt, nor that it falls conspicuously short of reflecting the guilt, and also that some men do not suffer for offences for which others are not even indicted. Acts that provoke a great deal of anger will, on the other hand, provoke an overly intense response and lead to reciprocal acts of violence. Deterrence Can fear discourage crime? In continuation, another primary argument against capital punishment is it costs state and federal governments a great deal to carry out the sentences.
Just dessert is also thought to be inflexible and fixed for every offender; very little if any consideration is given to the circumstances surrounding his or her crime. Hundreds of prisoners have sat on death row for 30 years or more, with countless victims and families never seeing justice served. In 1974, however, Robert Martinson published an influential article that dismissed rehabilitation programs as ineffective. But, as this article points out, retributive justice can easily morph into revenge, and can drive the escalation spiral even further. Citizens in a society enjoy the benefits of a rule of law. Retrieved June 2, 2014. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism.
For example, resentment about past injustice can "motivate people who otherwise live peaceably to engage in torture and slaughter of neighbors identified as members of groups who committed past atrocities. Under the just deserts model, A's penalty must reflect the commission of the murder. The principle was intended to limit spirals of vengeance and feuds, but this view as strictly applied was eventually rejected. It can also serve to teach wrongdoers how it feels to be treated in certain ways. Increasing Popularity During the early and middle years of the 20th century, retributivism fell out of favor as a theory of punishment.
Punishment is the negation of this negation, Hegel explains, and thus an affirmation of right, brought upon the criminal by himself. Retribution, or justice, is a system of revenge or retribution between two or more people. Proportionate Sentencing: Exploring the Principles. It suggests that criminals should be punished not because it is socially useful to do so, but because they deserve it. Retribution is important because it helps to prevent further violence and bloodshed. Hugh LaFollette, Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, 1997 , 466. The Epistemological Argument Against Deserts.
Retributive justice requires that the punishment fit the crime and that like cases be treated alike. It also helps to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice and that innocent people are not victimized. The time to act is now. Consequently, A is sentenced to life imprisonment. According to the website procon.
Just deserts is sometimes referred to as the 'retribution' type of sentencing. Examples Since just deserts involves punishment that fits the crime, it follows that a severe offense will receive an equally severe punishment. The central idea is that the offender has gained unfair advantages through his or her behavior, and that punishment will set this imbalance straight. Van Harmelen and Moriarty say that who should dictate whether or not Socrates was, in fact, guilty of a legitimate crime? The Just Deserts era was a time in history when a lot of progress was made in the world of technology. . On the other hand, now imagine that A gets into a scuffle with B while they are in a bar.
Just Deserts Essay ⋆ Criminal Justice Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire
Use the following to cite this article: Maiese, Michelle. Everyone has a role to play! But it doesn't help them beyond that with the emotional, social, economic or other harms that they suffered. Critics point to the high recidivism relapse into crime rates of persons sentenced to prison as evidence of the lack of effectiveness of specific deterrence. The classical definition embraces the idea that the amount of punishment must be proportionate to the amount of harm caused by the offence. Retribution is a system of law and order that is designed to maintain public order and protect the rights of both combatants and civilians. It can be argued whether there should be an objective purview of justice, where the punishment of offences can be seen as a cause-effect relationship or whether justice should deal with each case as an individual occurrence, taking into account all individual traits of all players, and the circumstances of the case, while keeping a superiority of morality always foremost in mind. Central to retributive justice are the notions of merit and desert.
When such an instance occurs, it is said that the offender has received their 'just deserts. The idea that wrongdoers should be "paid back" for their bad deeds need not lead to a demand for primitive vengeance. In cases of wrongdoing, someone who merits certain benefits has lost them, while someone who does not deserve those benefits has gained them. See also: "The ICC's First Verdict: Bench-Mark. The Torah— A Modern Commentary.
In my own capacity, I believe both for and against just punishment but it is not easy to prove either. Learn More Plato wrote his highly effective Republic, using Socrates as an example of justice in ancient Greek politics. In other words, as stated at the outset, the punishment should fit the crime. In summary, the death penalty must be applied strictly, quickly, and fairly. We think that people should receive what they deserve.
.jpg)
