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)

Second, just desert encompasses fair treatment both to the vulnerable in society and victims, not only the offenders as some argue. The victims of crimes know what type of justice they will receive. No victim would be more compensated than another. (Simons, 2000)

Third, just desert is a good model because it does a good job explaining the death penalty sufficiently for murder; if an individual commits murder and takes a life than surely the most just punishment would be a sentence of death; a life for a life (Simons, 2000)

Arguments against just desert

There are many arguments against the just deserts theory. Two significant arguments against the just desert theory are that it gives an inadequate justification of bias or hate crimes and cannot explain the state’s democratic duty to protect the most vulnerable victims. Many opponents are concerned that the state legislatures will set unreasonably high sentences. Just desert 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. There is also a fear that just desert would remove the rehabilitation aspect from prisons across the country (Singer, 1978).

Those that choose to argue in favor of just desert to support the continued use of the death penalty in the United States are missing, or