Show simple item record

Putting Desert in Its Place

dc.contributor.authorSlobogin, Christopher, 1951-
dc.contributor.authorBrinkley-Rubinstein, Lauren
dc.date.accessioned2017-08-16T19:58:24Z
dc.date.available2017-08-16T19:58:24Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.citation65 Stan. L. Rev. 77 (2013)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1803/8425
dc.descriptionarticle published in law reviewen_US
dc.description.abstractBased 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 law’s 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.en_US
dc.format.extent1 PDF (62 pages)en_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherStanford Law Reviewen_US
dc.subject.lcshLaw and ethicsen_US
dc.titlePutting Desert in Its Placeen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.ssrn-urihttp://ssrn.com/abstract=2192234


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record