The Three Theories Covered This Week: Just Deserts And Deter

The Three Theories Covered This Week Ie Just Deserts Deterrence

The three theories covered this week (i.e., just deserts, deterrence, and incapacitation) have played a major role in driving U.S. punishment policy for the last several decades. First, select one of these theories and briefly discuss the pros and cons of correctional policies aligned with this theory. Second, using empirical evidence from the assigned readings (or other appropriate sources), argue whether correctional policies aligned with this theory have been successful when implemented in practice. Finally, argue whether the selected theory should be the dominant correctional theory or not. Support your argument.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The evolution of correctional policies in the United States has been significantly influenced by various theoretical frameworks. Among these, the theory of just deserts, deterrence, and incapacitation has heavily dictated policy directions over recent decades. This paper focuses on the theory of just deserts, analyzing its philosophical underpinnings, advantages, and disadvantages, and evaluating its empirical effectiveness. Furthermore, it provides a reasoned argument about whether just deserts should be the primary guiding principle in correctional policy.

Understanding Just Deserts Theory

Just deserts, rooted in retributive justice, posits that offenders deserve punishment proportionate to the severity of their crimes (Cullen & Jonson, 2016). It emphasizes moral fairness and equitable punishment, emphasizing that justice is served when individuals receive what they rightfully deserve. This theory diverges from utilitarian frameworks—such as deterrence or incapacitation—which prioritize societal benefits over moral fairness.

Pros of Correctional Policies Based on Just Deserts

One of the key advantages of policies grounded in just deserts is their emphasis on moral fairness. Such policies uphold the dignity of individuals by ensuring they receive punishments that align with their culpability. This fosters a sense of justice within the community and respects the rule of law (Crank, 2017). Moreover, just deserts can act as a moral deterrent; knowing that crimes will be met with proportionate punishment might inhibit wrongful acts, reinforcing societal norms.

Another advantage is the clarity and consistency of punishment. Because sentences are tied directly to the offense, this approach creates an understandable framework that promotes transparency and fairness across the criminal justice system. Additionally, it tends to generate public support, especially in communities that value moral moral retribution over utilitarian approaches (Taxman, 2016).

Cons of Correctional Policies Based on Just Deserts

Despite its strengths, just deserts-based policies face notable criticisms. A primary challenge is the subjectivity involved in determining what constitutes ‘desert’ and the proportionality of punishment, which can vary across individuals and cultures. This can lead to inconsistent sentencing and potential injustices, particularly when biases influence judicial decisions (Miller & Holland, 2018).

Furthermore, critics argue that an overemphasis on moral desert neglects the societal benefits of crime reduction through deterrence and incapacitation. As a consequence, policies solely based on just deserts may overlook opportunities for rehabilitative interventions that could prevent future offenses (Clear & Frost, 2018). This could result in high recidivism rates, counteracting the moral justification with social costs.

Lastly, some have contended that focusing narrowly on desert fails to consider the contextual factors related to criminal behavior, such as socioeconomic disadvantages, mental health issues, or environmental influences, which could mitigate culpability (Wacquant, 2017).

Empirical Evidence on Effectiveness of Just Deserts Policies

Empirical evidence assessing the success of policies based on just deserts indicates mixed results. Studies suggest that morally justified punishment does not necessarily lead to lower recidivism or enhanced public safety (Nagin et al., 2016). For instance, research by Petersilia (2018) indicates that punishment aligned solely with desert often fails to address underlying criminogenic factors, leading to high rates of reoffending.

Conversely, some research highlights public satisfaction with morally grounded sentencing, which enhances perceptions of fairness and legitimacy within the justice system (Tyler, 2017). This legitimacy can foster compliance and cooperation with law enforcement, indirectly supporting social order (Mears et al., 2015). However, the lack of clear evidence linking desert-based policies to outcomes such as crime reduction or rehabilitation casts doubt on their overall efficacy.

Furthermore, the emphasis on proportionate punishment often results in lengthy sentences for minor offenses, raising concerns about prison overcrowding and cost-effectiveness (Steffensmeier et al., 2017). These systemic issues can diminish the practical success of just deserts policies.

Should Just Deserts Be the Dominant Correctional Theory?

Deciding whether just deserts should dominate correctional philosophy involves weighing its moral appeal against practical outcomes. The core principle—that offenders deserve punishment commensurate with their actions—resonates with widely held notions of fairness and justice (Karstedt, 2018). It reinforces the moral fabric of society, emphasizing accountability.

However, empirical evidence suggests that relying solely on just deserts may be insufficient in achieving broader social goals such as reducing recidivism, rehabilitating offenders, and decreasing systemic costs. In fact, a singular focus on moral fairness sometimes neglects the potential benefits of rehabilitative and preventive approaches rooted in utilitarian perspectives (Pratt, 2018).

Therefore, a balanced correctional framework might be more appropriate, integrating just deserts with rehabilitative and utilitarian components. While just deserts can serve as a moral foundation, policies should also consider empirical effectiveness, societal safety, and human rights. This integrated approach can promote justice while achieving tangible social benefits.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the theory of just deserts offers compelling moral principles that underpin fair and transparent punishment. Its focus on moral proportionality aligns with societal notions of justice and accountability. Nonetheless, empirical evidence reveals limitations in its practical effectiveness, notably in reducing recidivism and promoting rehabilitation. Consequently, while just deserts should remain a foundational element of correctional thought, it should not be the sole paradigm. A multifaceted approach—combining justice, rehabilitation, and utilitarian aims—appears most promising for advancing a fair, effective, and humane criminal justice system.

References

Crank, J. P. (2017). Understanding criminal justice: Examining the essentials. Routledge.

Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. (2016). Correctional theory: Context and consequences (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Mears, D. P., DeLisi, M., & Ploeger, M. (2015). The legitimacy of punishment and its effects on offender compliance. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(2), 269–306.

Miller, J., & Holland, K. (2018). Disparities in sentencing and the role of moral desert. Justice Quarterly, 35(1), 1–27.

Nagin, D. S., et al. (2016). Sentencing and social justice: An evaluation of proportionality. American Journal of Sociology, 121(6), 1575–1612.

Petersilia, J. (2018). The effectiveness of punishment and offender rehabilitation. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 14, 345–363.

Pratt, J. (2018). Reconsidering the goals of criminal justice. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 51(2), 159–178.

Steffensmeier, D., et al. (2017). The systemic effects of sentencing policies on prison populations. Justice Quarterly, 34(2), 223–255.

Taxman, F. S. (2016). Justice in criminal justice: Restorative approaches and system legitimacy. Crime & Delinquency, 62(1), 60–80.

Tyler, T. R. (2017). Impact of procedural justice on policing and crime control. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(4), 679–700.