Running head: JUST DESSERT

Just Dessert Michelle Winters ADJ/215 Criminology November 14, 2010 Reginald Anthony

JUST DESSERT

Just Dessert What is Just Dessert? According to Thielmann & Wenzel, just desert is a philosophy of justice whereby a criminal offense is viewed as lowering the victim or community's status or power relative to the offender, which requires a degradation of the offender to redress the moral balance (Thielmann & Wenzel, 2006). The term just dessert implies that justice has been served. The term just dessert is often described as how justice should be carried out to those criminals who have conducted such crimes as murder, rape, and child abuse, and child molestation. For example the case of an accused murderer who cannot be brought to trial due to lack of evidence by the prosecution; the accused may believe he/she will go free; however the accused is later killed by a car while crossing the street. Many individuals may look at this as the accused receiving his/her just dessert or justice for the crimes which was committed. There are many arguments on the effectiveness of the term just dessert and as to whether the term should apply only for justice of crimes or only as rewards for good deeds. I am of the opinion that the term applies to both good and bad and that the effectiveness of just dessert depends upon whether we actually learn from the outcome of the term; whether the outcome be good or bad. If individuals strive each day to live their lives in the service of others such as going the extra mile to help a stranger or just stopping in to see a needy friend, these individuals will be blessed somehow within their lives thus receiving their just dessert the same applies if an individual chooses to only be charitable several times within their life they will in some way receive their just dessert or reward as some would call it for the good deeds they have done. On the contrary however if an individual chooses to live their life selfishly, only thinking of him/herself shows no compassion for others or commits a crime he/she will receive their just dessert as well whether it be unhappiness, imprisonment or death.

JUST DESSERT I am also of the same opinion as Feinberg (1970), Justice cannot consist just by getting what is deserved. (Feinberg, 1970) When we are speaking of just dessert as a form of justice we should take into account the circumstances leading up to the crime, the past and present history of the accused and any and all circumstances surrounding the crime. Is it true that the

punishment should fit the crime? I believe so; however I also believe that the punishment should be dependent not only upon the crime but upon the circumstances as a whole. For example if I fail to teach my children about the consequences of having unprotected sex and as a result my daughter ends up pregnant should I in some way punish her or make her feel as though she has made an unforgivable mistake? No I should not because I failed to teach her or even discuss with her the consequences of said actions. I feel the same goes for criminal activity any punishment should fit the individual not simply the crime. Everyone of course deserves to be punished and receive what he/she has done. However, a punishment for what we believe to be fair according to the crime may also be seen as unfair. It is obvious that most believe that no crime should go unpunished; but to what degree should the punishment be. Circumstances need to play a large role in how justice or the just dessert of crimes are carried out; circumstances such as in the case of a car accident due to bad weather which results in charges of involuntary manslaughter of one of the passengers being brought against the driver; should the driver really be convicted of this crime when the weather was to blame? There are possible factors and circumstances which can make the crime or action leading to the crime severe out of intention or personal choice, such as hiring someone to kill your wife for money. In these such cases, the use of the term just desert may be justified. According to Rawls (1971), Just distribution cannot be based on factors that the recipient has no control. (Rawls, 1971)

JUST DESSERT

There are many arguments in favour of letting the punishment fit the crime; and to a point I would agree however I adamantly believe that we should let the punishment fit the individual. Many crimes are similar however each individual is different and each individual commits crimes for different reasons. This is why I feel that punishments should fit individuals and not crimes.

JUST DESSERT

References Feinberg, J (1970). Justice and personal desert. Princeton University Press.

Thielma nn, I., Wenzel, M. (2006). Why we punish in the name of justice: Just desert versus value restoration and the role of social identity.

Rawls, J (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.