Do Offenders Deserve Proportionate Punishments?

Criminal Law and Philosophy 15 (3):463-480 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX


The aim of the paper is to investigate how retributivists should respond to the apparent tension between moral desert and proportionality in punishment. I argue that rather than attempting to show that the term ‘proportionate punishment’ refers to whatever penal treatment the offender morally deserves, retributivists should maintain two things: first, that a punishment is proportionate when it is commensurate to the seriousness of the crime; second, that offenders morally deserve proportionate punishments. This view requires adopting a local theory of desert as opposed to a holistic one. In the second part of the paper, I argue that there are indeed good reasons to adopt a local theory of desert. Once retributivism is seen through the lens of local desert, there is no obvious mistake in saying that offenders morally deserve punishments that are proportionate to the seriousness of their crimes.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,323

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Subjective Experience of Punishment.Adam J. Kolber - 2009 - Columbia Law Review 109:182.
Punishment and Character: Must Punishment Make People Worse?Stephen Andrew Whitton - 2001 - Dissertation, The University of Wisconsin - Madison
Time and Retribution.Patrick Tomlin - 2014 - Law and Philosophy 33 (5):655-682.
Desert and Fairness in Criminal Justice.Erin I. Kelly - 2012 - Philosophical Topics 40 (1):63-77.
A Retributive Argument Against Punishment.Greg Roebuck & David Wood - 2011 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (1):73-86.
Retributivism In Extremis.Douglas Husak - 2013 - Law and Philosophy 32 (1):3-31.


Added to PP

57 (#282,823)

6 months
45 (#93,693)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?