Just Deserts Theory

Explanation

Just deserts is a retributivist theory of punishment. Unlike theories that are primarily concerned with preventing future offenses, such as deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation, retributivist theories are only concerned with punishing crimes that have already been committed.

Historically, retribution has been associated with the biblical tenet of lex talionis or the law of vengeance. Epitomized by the phrase “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” this view of punishment argues that what happens to the offender should be equivalent to the crime he or she committed. However, modern retributivist theory is more concerned with seeking proportionality than with exacting vengeance. Proponents aim to ensure that offenders receive their just deserts for their wrongdoing and that their punishment is proportionate to the seriousness of their offense.

The just deserts model derives from the theories of Immanuel Kant. In his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, published in 1785, Kant argued that humans are free and rational agents. Therefore, everyone must recognize the consequences of his or her actions and accept the deserts of his or her deeds. Failure to punish the guilty, he argued, constitutes a violation of justice. However, he stated that deserts in the form of judicial punishment must only be inflicted to punish those who have committed a crime and not for any other purpose.

In keeping with this theory of moral reasoning, then, just deserts proponents argue that offenders should be punished, but only because they deserve it. They claim that although other positive benefits may occur as a result of punishment (such as, e.g., the prevention of further crimes) these are simply incidental effects and should not be seen as the purpose of punishment.

For the just deserts model to be feasible and effective, a scale or “tariff” of crimes and punishments is required. The underlying principle of the tariff system is that offenders receive a punishment that is proportionate to both the severity of the offense and the culpability, or blameworthiness, of the offender. To establish a tariff, crimes need to be ranked or categorized according to their relative seriousness and punishments should then be categorized alongside according to their relative unpleasantness. This is known as ordinal proportionality. [Page 504]In addition, the severity of the whole scale or tariff needs to be standardized and fixed to ensure that offenders are not punished too severely or too leniently overall. This is the principle of cardinal proportionality.

...