What are the pros and cons or arguments for and against the just desert punishment theory?

Check this site for some ideas.

http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/200/ratchoc.html

I have looked into this page already. I am trying to understand the actual theory behind it. Is it stating that the victim should be able to punish the criminal in the same way that was done to them? An eye for an eye per say?

It isn't the victim that does the punishing, but it's society. Yes, "just deserts" is a variation of the "eye for an eye" doctrine. The main tenet of "just deserts" is that the criminal deserves to be punished.

In this theory, no consideration is made for the deterrent effect nor whether the criminal can be rehabilitated.

My favorite example is that in 18th and 19th century England, pickpockets were often hung in public places. Yet, in the throngs that gathered to watch these deaths, pickpockets plied their trade and stole wallets. So much for the deterrent effect of harsh punishments!

thanks

You're welcome.

The just desert punishment theory, also known as retributive justice, is a philosophy that asserts that individuals who commit crimes should receive punishment in proportion to the harm they have caused. Proponents of this theory argue that it serves as a moral balancing mechanism, ensuring that offenders face the consequences of their actions. However, critics raise several concerns and offer counterarguments against this perspective. Here, I will explain the pros and cons of the just desert punishment theory and the arguments supporting and opposing it.

Pros or Arguments For Just Desert Punishment Theory:
1. Moral Rightness: Supporters contend that punishing offenders is morally justifiable because it upholds the principle of fairness. According to this view, individuals who willingly violate the law should face the consequences of their actions, promoting a sense of justice within society.
2. Accountability and Deterrence: Proponents argue that retributive justice holds individuals accountable for their actions and acts as a deterrent for potential offenders. The fear of receiving punishment serves as a deterrent, potentially reducing crime rates.
3. Restoration of Balance: Advocates assert that just desert punishment theory restores the societal balance disturbed by the crime. By ensuring proportional punishment, this theory seeks to provide solace to victims, acknowledging their suffering and validating their rights.
4. Retribution as a Fundamental Human Desire: Some argue that retributive justice satisfies an inherent human desire for revenge or retribution. It provides a sense of closure for victims and society, allowing them to heal and move forward.

Cons or Arguments Against Just Desert Punishment Theory:
1. Lack of Rehabilitation: Critics of this theory argue that it solely focuses on punishment and overlooks the rehabilitative aspect of the criminal justice system. By emphasizing retribution, the just desert theory neglects opportunities for offenders to reintegrate into society, potentially perpetuating a cycle of crime.
2. Disproportionate Punishment: Opponents contend that the application of retributive justice can lead to disproportionately harsh punishments, particularly when factors like social inequalities, bias, or mitigating circumstances are overlooked. This raises concerns about fairness and the potential for unjust outcomes.
3. Inefficiency and Cost: Critics argue that the resources allocated towards implementing retributive punishments could be more effectively used in prevention, rehabilitation efforts, or addressing the root causes of criminal behavior. This criticism highlights the potential inefficiency and high financial costs associated with retributive justice.
4. Limited Potential for Restorative Justice: Opponents suggest that the just desert punishment theory focuses primarily on the offender and victim, neglecting the wider community impacted by the crime. Restorative justice, an alternative approach, emphasizes repairing relationships and addressing the harm caused, rather than just punishing the offender.

In discussing the pros and cons or arguments for and against the just desert punishment theory, it is essential to consider a wide range of perspectives. Ultimately, the effectiveness and appropriateness of retributive justice may vary depending on the nature of the crime, the legal and cultural context, and individual perspectives on the goals of the criminal justice system.