Punishment And Desert, By James Rachels

In his essay Punishment and Desert, philosopher James Rachels describes his thoughts on retributive justice in great detail, and ultimately arrives at the conclusion that “retribution is the only idea that provides the basis of a just system of punishment.” Retributivism is a theory of punishment that aligns with the idea that those who do wrong or commit a crime deserve a punishment that is directly proportional to the severity of their wrongdoing. Retributivistic theory also states that the act itself of punishing a wrongdoer in direct proportion to their actions is a moral necessity. While other theories regarding crime and punishment, such as the utilitarian view, may seek to understand wrongdoing in a grander context, retributivism only

Rachels states that there are four key principles to consider when determining whether a punishment is just: one’s guilt, equal treatment, proportionality of the punishment, and the impact of any excuses. Rachels argues that while a more utilitarian Deterrence based system accurately considers only equal treatment, and a similar rehabilitation based system might only accurately consider excuses, a system based on retributive principles can truly consider all four of the aforementioned key principles. He states that under retributivism, guilt can be accurately judged, since an individual’s voluntary actions are what they face judgment for under such a system. Equal treatment is also supposedly guaranteed, since any two individuals that commit the same crime would under such a system receive the same punishment, following the principle of desert. Proportionality is also said to be guaranteed under a retributive system, due again to the concept of desert being applicable formulaically. Finally, in regards to excuses, a retributive system must accept and take certain excuses into consideration, due to the fact that only one’s voluntary behavior is considered when determining their desert, and situations truly out of one’s control do not fall under the definition of “voluntary

He would likely point out that while a conclusion his ideal retributivist system may come to in regards to punishment may be unseemly, or seem to lack consideration for the aforementioned combination of elements, it will ultimately be just. I would, however, argue that such a conclusion can not be just, since by Rachels’ own account, we must treat people according to what they deserve, and we can not accurately judge what one deserves without accurately judging the extent of their agency. In failing to consider aspects of desert and justice that are not immediately apparent, I argue that Rachels’ ideal retributivist theory falls short of being accurate, and therefore of being able to accurately determine what is