Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Stanford Law Review

Publication Date

2013

ISSN

0038-9765

Page Number

77

Keywords

just desert, sentencing, punishment, empirical desert, preventive justice

Disciplines

Criminal Law | Law

Abstract

Based on an impressive array of studies, Paul Robinson and his coauthors have developed a new theory of criminal justice, which they call empirical desert. The theory asserts that, because people are more likely to be compliant with a legal regime that is perceived to be morally credible, a criminal justice system that tracks empirically derived lay views about how much punishment is deserved is the most efficient way of achieving utilitarian goals, or at least is as efficient at crime prevention as a system that focuses solely on deterrence and incapacitation. This Article describes seven original studies that test the most important hypotheses underlying empirical desert theory. The authors conclusions, which throw doubt on much of empirical desert theory, include the following: (1) while consensus on the ordinal ranking of traditional crimes is relatively strong, agreement about appropriate punishments ”which arguably is the type of agreement empirical desert requires in order to work” is weak; (2) the relationship between people's willingness to abide by the law and the laws congruence with their beliefs about appropriate punishment is complex and not necessarily positive; further, any noncompliance that results from the law's failure to reflect lay views about desert is probably no greater than the noncompliance triggered by a failure to follow lay views about the role utilitarian goals should play in fashioning criminal dispositions; (3) while the relative crime control benefits of a desert-based system and a prevention-based system are hard to evaluate (and are not directly examined here), people are willing to depart from desert in cases that do not involve the most serious crimes if they believe that preventive goals can be achieved in some other way. The Article ends by discussing the implications of these findings for criminal justice policy, especially with respect to determinate and indeterminate sentencing.

Included in

Criminal Law Commons

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.