The “just deserts” theory of punishment is based on the idea that criminals deserve to be punished in proportion to their crimes. This theory stands in contrast to other theories of punishment, which may focus on deterrence or rehabilitation.
The just deserts theory is often used to justify harsher punishments for more serious crimes. For example, someone who commits murder may be given a life sentence in prison, while someone who commits a less serious crime may only be given a few years in prison.
There are several criticisms of the just deserts theory. First, it can be difficult to determine exactly how much punishment a person deserves. Second, this theory does not take into account the possibility of rehabilitation. Finally, some argue that the just deserts theory is simply a way to justify revenge rather than provide any real benefit to society.
Despite these criticisms, the just deserts theory remains a popular justification for punishment in many criminal justice systems around the world.
The punishment for wrongdoing belongs to those who commit crimes, and it is only just that they be punished. By imposing penalties on offenders, future offenses may be prevented (Siegel, 2012). There have been several distinct viewpoints about this idea of “just deserts.” Some people argue against it, while others strongly defend its effectiveness. We’ll look at both sides of the argument as well as the benefits and drawbacks for each.
When a criminal is punished in a way that is deemed just, it acts as a deterrent for both that individual and others who may be considering committing a similar crime. If the punishment is too lenient, it may not be enough of a deterrent and the offender may reoffend. If the punishment is too harsh, it could be viewed as excessive and unfair. There needs to be a balance in order for “just deserts” to be effective.
Proponents of just deserts argue that it is a more humane form of punishment than other methods, such as rehabilitation or retribution. They believe that criminals should be given punishments that fit their crimes, and that this will lead to fewer repeat offenders. Opponents of just deserts argue that it is often applied in a discriminatory manner, with minorities and other disadvantaged groups being disproportionately represented among those who receive harsh punishments.
There are advantages and disadvantages to the just deserts theory of punishment. It is important to consider all of these before making a decision about whether or not this type of punishment is appropriate in a given situation.
The notion that a person should be punished for the crime they committed is supported by the fact that committing a wrong is unethical. Some people might think of this “eye for an eye” mentality as vengeance. Of course, this isn’t the objective of the criminal justice system. Vengeance has no place in the criminal justice system, therefore the criminal justice system focuses on the act rather than on the offender (Sullivan, 2007).
When a person commits a crime they have broken the law. The criminal justice system is in place to uphold the law. When a person breaks the law they have committed an offense against society. It is the responsibility of the criminal justice system to hold those who break the law accountable for their actions. This is done through the use of punishment. The main goal of punishment is to deterrence. That is, to discourage people from breaking the law in the future. There are other goals of punishment as well including rehabilitation, incapacitation, and retribution (Sullivan, 2007).
Retribution is often seen as a archaic form of punishment. Many people view it as being “eye for an eye” attitude. That is, if a person commits a crime they should be punished in the same manner as their victim. For example, if a person robs a bank and shoots the teller, they should be shot. While this form of punishment may seem severe, it is based on the belief that people deserve to be punished for the crimes they commit. This type of punishment is often seen as being more effective at deterring people from breaking the law (Sullivan, 2007).
Punishment can take many forms. The most common form of punishment is incarceration. Incarceration is when a person is confined to a jail or prison for a period of time. Other forms of punishment include but are not limited to: probation, community service, house arrest, electronic monitoring, and fines (Sullivan, 2007).
The type of punishment a person receives is often dependent on the severity of the crime they committed. For example, a person who commits a minor offense such as shoplifting may only receive a fine. A person who commits a more serious offense such as robbery or murder may be sentenced to incarceration. The amount of time a person spends in jail or prison is often dependent on the severity of their crime as well (Sullivan, 2007).
In recent years there has been an increased focus on rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is when a person is given the opportunity to change their behavior and reenter society. This is done through programs that are designed to help the offender change their behavior. For example, drug offenders may be required to attend drug counseling or sex offenders may be required to attend sex offender treatment. The goal of rehabilitation is to help the offender become a productive member of society (Sullivan, 2007).
The use of incarceration as a form of punishment has come under scrutiny in recent years. Many people believe that the use of incarceration does not deter crime. In fact, some believe that it actually increases the likelihood of reoffending. The use of alternative forms of punishment such as probation and community service are often seen as being more effective at deterring crime (Sullivan, 2007).
So, in essence, we’re determining a punishment based on the severity of the crime rather than the perpetrator. We choose the penalty depending on how much damage was caused (McKee, 2007). This theory ignores other elements that exist, such as the context surrounding the offense. Perhaps it is because of this reason that many experts disagree with the just desert principle.
The just desert theory has been around for centuries. It was first established in the 18th century by Cesare Beccaria. In his book, On Crimes and Punishments, he proposed that the severity of the punishment should match the severity of the crime (Beccaria, 1764). However, many people argue that this is not always the case. There are many factors that go into deciding on a punishment and the just desert theory does not take these factors into consideration.
One of the main problems with just deserts is that it does not consider the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, if two people commit the same crime but one did it out of necessity to protect themselves or their family, would they both deserve the same punishment? According to the just desert theory, they would. However, many people would argue that the person who committed the crime out of necessity should not be punished as harshly as the person who did it without any justifiable reason.
Another problem with the just desert theory is that it does not take into consideration the criminal’s background or family life. For example, if a person comes from a family of criminals, is that person more likely to commit a crime than someone who comes from a law-abiding family? If we consider the just desert theory, then the answer would be no because the severity of the punishment should match the severity of the crime. However, many people would argue that this is not always the case.