JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
Please be advised that the site will be down for maintenance on Sunday, September 1, 2024, from 08:00 to 18:00, and again on Monday, September 2, 2024, from 08:00 to 09:00. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
How much punishment is deserved? Two alternatives to proportionality
When it comes to the question of how much the state ought to punish a given offender, the standard understanding of the desert theory for centuries has been that it should give him a penalty proportionate to his offense, that is, an amount of punishment that fits the severity of his crime. In this article, we maintain that a desert theorist is not conceptually or otherwise required to hold a proportionality requirement. We show that there is logical space for at least two other, non-proportionate ways of meting out deserved penalties, and we also argue that they have important advantages relative to the dominant, proportionality approach.