Just Desert Essay Example for Free

Just Desert Essay â€Å"Just Deserts† is simply defined as the morally reassuring allocation of happy and unhappy, virtuous and the vicious characters respectively and are usually at the end of a narrative or dramatic work. (Liberman, Peter 2006). Just desert is an idiom coined by Thomas Rhymer in 1968 from the word just and desert. Just is being honorable and fair in one’s dealings and actions whereas desert is what one deserves rightly. However there are many arguments from those who are in favor and those who are against â€Å"Just Deserts†. Those in favor argue that people who work hard deserve the fruits of their labor while whose who break the rules deserve to be treated in the same way that they voluntarily choose to treat others that is if you behave well, you are entitled to good treatment from others. The central idea they put forward is that the offender gains unfair advantages through his/her behavior and punishment will set that imbalance right/straight. Citizens should enjoy the benefits of the rule of law and anyone who seeks those benefits without willing to make the necessary sacrifice of self restraint wants to be a free rider by helping himself to unfair advantages and the society/state needs to prevent this to preserve the rule of law. This is because in the event of wrong doing one who merits certain benefits loses them while one who doesn’t deserve them gains them and therefore punishment removes the underserved benefits by imposing a penalty that in some sense pays for the harm inflicted by the offense. Just desert aims to restore both victim and offender to their appropriate positions relative to each other justifying the punishment is a warranted response to past events of injustice or wrong doing and acts to reinforce ruler that have been broken and balance the scales of justice. They believe that since conflict often involves violence and many involve genocide, racial discrimination, rape, murder and torture. The perpetrators should be brought to justice and this is only accomplished through international courts or tribunals that carry out war crimes adjudication. Consequently they feel that retributive justice gives those who violate human rights law or commit crimes against humanity their â€Å"just deserts† and that punishment will reinforce the rules of international law add that it denies those who have violated those rules any unfair advantages. However, there are those who are against â€Å"just deserts† completely since they are convinced that there is a tendency to slip from retributive justice to an emphasis on revenge which is a matter of retaliation they feel that revenge will only focus on personal hurt involved and will typically rotate around anger, hatred, bitterness and resentment. Such emotions are very destructive since they lead to overreaction and therefore the resulting punishments can be excessive and might cause antagonism. In addition, punishments which usually dictated by revenge will automatically not satisfy the principles of proportionality or consistency (Rachels, James. , (1997). This is because vengeance leads to punishment and vary according to the degree of anger provoked. This will ultimately mean that wrongs that do not provoke anger will receive no response while those acts that provoke a great deal of anger will on the other hand provoke and overly intense response. These responses which are dictated by emotions usually may lead to reciprocal acts of violence. This are normally thought to occur mostly in regions where there were past injustices done to the locals who re otherwise living together in harmony and if punishments which are dictated by vengeance are given resentments of past injustices may motivate people who otherwise live peacefully engage in torture and slaughter of neighbors identified are members of groups who committed past atrocities. This will provoke devastating inter group violence in the form of mass killing which further leads to more harm and downward spiral of violence. Overly harsh punishments brings/evokes feelings of hatred, increases the level of harm done, additionally, in an atmosphere of heightened violence, the room for forgiveness and apologies is closed or very little. In this event many of those who oppose â€Å"just deserts† believe that the victims should not seek revenge since this will in turn make them new victimizers but instead they should forgive the offenders and in the end cycle of the offence is discontinued. Furthermore, they feel that forgiveness does not and will not take the place of justice or punishments, nor does it rule out giving the wrong doer his/her â€Å"just deserts†. In summary, both arguments for and against â€Å"just deserts† suggest that punishments should fit the errors that is like cases be treated alike and that the wrong doer wholly deserves blame and punishment proportionate to the harm inflicted. However, thou against feel that formal institutions with trained judiciaries are best equipped to carry out just retribution and that such institution can effectively bring the offenders to justice by giving them punishment they deserve. They continue to say that truth and reconciliation commissions play an integral role especially trials for war crimes can convert the desire for revenge into state managed punishment that is proportional and fair. However, they warn that incases of large scale violence such trials are ineffective but propose restorative justice through reparations and compensation. References: Gragg, Wesley (1992). The practice of punishment towards a theory of restorative justice (New York, Routledge, 15. Liberman, Peter 2006. An eye for an eye public support for war against evil doers. International organization Rachels, James (1997) â€Å"punishment and Desert† in ethics in practice, ed Hugh Lafollette Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers,