Only deserts dissertation
The concept of “just deserts” could be most efficiently described in the writings of Andrew Vonseiten Hirsch. Basically those who devote crime should have to be penalized and by penalizing them it may prevent further crimes from being dedicated (Siegel, 2012). There have been numerous positions within this theory of just deserts. Some claim against while some strongly guard the effectiveness of this theory. We will look at both sides of the argument and review the good qualities and cons of each. The key rationale lurking behind this theory is that assigning a crime is definitely wrong therefore a person should be reprimanded for the crime that they committed.
Remember: This is just a sample from a fellow student. Your time is important. Let us write you an essay from scratch
For some this “eye for an eye” frame of mind bares a detailed resemblance to vengeance. Certainly this is not the aim of the legal justice system. Vengeance does not have any place within the criminal proper rights system. Therefore , the legal justice program looks at the crime that was determined rather than the person involved in the crime (Sullivan, 2007). So , essentially we are picking out the punishment by the intensity of the offense committed without regard for the individual who dedicated the take action.
We determine the treatment according to how much harm was completed (McKee, 2007). Unfortunately, this theory disregards other factors which can be present including the circumstances around the criminal offenses. Perhaps for the reason that of this cause that many students disagree together with the just wilderness doctrine. The goals with the criminal justice system happen to be retribution, death, deterrence, and rehabilitation (Wald, 2001). Sadly, retribution on many occasions is the simply goal that is certainly really achieved by some of the harsh punishments which might be handed down under the “just deserts” doctrine. Deterrence may be achieved by deterring other folks from assigning the same criminal offense; however it frequently fails to prevent the culprit that was punished. One particular report revealed that within three years twenty-four. 2% of convicted offenders were reconvicted of a new crime after their launch (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011).
This data obviously shows that even when the offender receives their particular “just deserts” it fails to deter them from assigning another criminal offense. Perhaps it is best to determine the proper punishment not simply according to the criminal offenses but as well the person whom committed the crime. However are many fights against the effectiveness of the merely deserts doctrine this does not signify in any way it should be abandoned. If a person does a crime, specifically one that is heinous in nature, they should definitely be given a punishment that fits you the criminal offenses. We must consider that for many crimes this kind of doctrine is acceptable. For instance, only deserts cause a sense of equality or fairness to the sentencing aspect of criminal justice. A large number of states base their sentencing guidelines mainly on the merely deserts sentencing theory (Frase, 1997).
With this getting said it would be extremely hard to argue that the simply deserts theory should be completely left in the dust. There are positives and negatives when considering this theory as there are with any theory. I highly believe that you will find aspects of the needed desert theory that need to remain unchanged. Yet , I as well believe that our company is approaching a new modern period where doctrines that have been employed throughout record need to be modified. We now have even more understanding of conditions that surround some crimes. I feel that there is also a need to ensure which the punishment does fit the crime that was committed. It is also my own belief that all case is unique and some factors need to be considered.
Perhaps it could be more effective to reinvent and even combine past, present, and future theories into a “hybrid” theory. In this way we can attain the many desired goals set out by criminal proper rights system. I feel that offenders do not need to only treatment but also rehabilitation most of the time in order to decrease the rate of recidivism. We need to look at the real picture rather than only a small section. Our prisons are constantly being overcrowded and often instances by offenders that no longer pose a threat to society. As well, there are cases of bad guys receiving a punishment that does not fit the criminal offense. So , by reinventing the needed desert theory and surrounding it to a more modern theory that is a better fit to get our time it may be feasible to make sentencing practices more effective.
References
Bureau of Justice Stats. (2011). Recidivism rates of prisoners. Gathered from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=datool&surl=/recidivism/index.cfm# Frase, R. S. (1997). Sentencing rules in theory and practice. Offense and Proper rights. Retrieved by http://www.jstor.org/stable/1147577 Haist, M. (2009). Deterrence in a sea of “just deserts”: are functional goals attainable in a world of limiting retributivism? Journal of Criminal Law &
Criminology, 99(3), p. 789-821. Just Sweets. (n. d. ) West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, model 2 . (2008). Retrieved January 25 2013 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Just+Desserts McKee, A. J. (2007). Justice. Encyclopedia of Criminal offenses and Abuse. doi: 12. 4135/9781412950664 Amtszeichen, L. J. (2012). Criminology (11th male impotence. ). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Sullivan, D. E. (2007). Just desert. Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment. doi: 10. 4135/9781412950664 Wald, G. M. (2001). Why give attention to women offenders? Criminal Rights Magazine, 16(1). Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_magazine_home/crimjust_cjmag_16_1_wald.html
1
