Just Desert: Research into Criminal Justice Philosophy

The concept of just desert is one poorly understood outside of legal circles. The term's common usage complicates comprehension for outsiders, and, even once the term's true meaning is established, it can be a confusingly complex, and, at times self-contradictory, category of judicial philosophy.

According to Gary Martin of Phrases.org, the phrase 'just desert' comes from the 16^th Century. A clearer, modernized version would be 'that which is justly deserved.' In that respect, the conventional wisdom interpretation of the phrase is not so far off; many believe the phrase refers to a dessert, as in a treat, and therefore is in reference to a just reward for a good deed.

In fact, the term correctly applies to deeds both good and ill, but, from the perspective of the criminal justice discipline, it is most often applied with regards to negative behavior. It is, after all, seldom the duty of the courts to reward those who have committed honorable or noble acts.

According to Thielmann & Wenzel, just desert is a philosophy of justice whereby a criminal offense is viewed as lowering the victim or community's status or power relative to the offender, which requires a degradation of the offender to redress the moral balance (Thielmann & Wenzel, 2006).

However, according to Prof. Nuyen of the University of Queensland, Australia, just desert means to ensure that a punishment is both appropriate to a crime, and that it is consistent. He states, "Someone who steals a loaf of bread does not deserve the sentence of life imprisonment" (Nuyen, 1997).

Now, given the confusion surrounding the topic, it seems that the majority of the argument in the matter is over exactly what the term means. If one considers just desert to mean a redress of grievances by mutual degradation, it should be a matter of little difficulty to discredit and banish such a theory from the field of justice. However, if one considers the term to mean that criminals should get exactly what they deserve, no more, no less, then one would be hard-pressed to find a convincing argument to stand in opposition.