Justice And The Principle Of Desert

1404 WordsMay 25, 20156 Pages
Almost all general philosophies of punishment contribute different methods for determining any punishment’s fit with crime. Retributivism, a philosophy, broadly justifies the punishment that a person receive for breaking the law, through justice and the principle of desert. A common form of expressing the ideology of retribution is “an eye for an eye.” This theory consists of two main parts, the offender deserving punishment and the punishment should ft the crime. I will discuss the claim made by Retrbituivisist’s through focusing on whether Retributivist’s assumptions about moral responsibility are well founded. The principle of desert states that we deserve to be treated as well or as badly as we treat others. In other words if we substitute the word treated for punished, we can justify actions through this principle. The conflict arises when one does not agree with the Retributivist’s theory, in that there are people who find it justifiable or rewarding to balance out infliction. Some believe this is not the right way to go, and, a lot of the time seek backing from ideological texts. There are also others who take one side of the principle, that they only like the idea of good treatment for the good servant. Putting revenge aside in all of this, it seems virtuous not to punish for crimes, this would be a good argument if the judicial system could provide an alternative way to minimise reoccurrence of infliction. But this alone does not balance out moral fairness. For
Open Document