The Pros and Cons
After reading anything and everything I could find on the Just Desert Theory, I have to say, I am still quite confused. I realize that I have a lot to learn and am very interested in the ideas, but hope that I will be able to come to a better understanding of this theory and the arguments behind it. That being said, I apologize if the rest of this assignment does not make any sense.
My understanding of the Just Desert Theory is that any one person should be punished for crimes they have committed based on the crime and not on that of anything else. The Rational Choice Theory gives several strategies to use as a base for punishing criminals based on their age at the time of the crime or other criteria, however, the Just Desert Theory, tells us that is should not matter what the age of a person is, it is the crime they have committed that the law should be focused on. Also, the Just Desert Theory states that the punishment for the crime committed should be the same for everybody who commits this crime and the punishment should not be more harshly given to others who have committed the same crime because the law believes that a harsher sentence for the crime will be seen as an example of what could happen and prevent others from committing the crime in the future.
The Just Desert Theory is basically saying that for every crime there should be a universal punishment and to give any other punishment for crime would be unfair. The theory is based on giving people what they deserve and not what the law believes will help to prevent future criminals from committing the crimes by giving a harsher sentence to any one person who has committed a crime, versus what the punishment for the same crime has been for other offenders of the same crime. “Desert requires responsibility. That is, people must be responsible for the actions and character traits in virtue of which they are deserving.” Moriarty, J. (2002).
In my own...