NCJ Number
114996
Journal
Wayne Law Review Volume: 33 Issue: 4 Dated: (Summer 1987) Pages: 1343-1361
Date Published
1987
Length
19 pages
Annotation
The concept of desert is often viewed as a simple and straightforward one, but it is in fact extremely complicated and is workable in sentencing only if fairly arbitrary conventions are used that exclude morally pertinent distinctions from consideration.
Abstract
Desert is usually associated with retributive theories of punishment and is supposed to be commensurate with the evil represented by the crime itself. It is thus supposed to avoid that kind of apparently arbitrary individualization that occurs when efforts are made to tailor the punishment to fit the offender rather than the offense. However, scaling punishment to desert may be important for other purposes besides retribution. In addition, punishment based on desert, in principle, requires considerable individualization. Thus, true desert is actually an overwhelmingly complex concept and can be applied only within the context of a contrived series of conventions regarding the factors that will and will not be considered pertinent in determining differences and similarities between offenders. Therefore, simplicity or ease of calculation should not be used as arguments to justify the use of desert-based sentencing.