Criminallaw scholar Professor Paul Robinson argues that we should punish accor

ORDER YOUR PAPER AND GET QUALITY FOR YOUR MONEY

Criminallaw scholar Professor Paul Robinson argues that we should punishaccording to desert, but only as a means of reducing crime by increasingthe moral credibility of the criminal legal system. The argument isthat if the public feels like the criminal justice system gives peoplethe punishments they deserve, then the public will be more compliant.Note that while Prof. Robinson is talking about desert, he is making a consequentialistargument. Desert is used as a means to achieve public support for andcreate the greater public good of compliance with the criminal law.Prof. Robinson titled his position “empirical desert” because his ideainvolves determining which behavior is deserving of punishment (being acrime) based on evidence of shared public perceptions of desert.Fora retributivist (like Michael Moore), deterrence is a collateralconsequence (however welcome) of punishment. Behavior is punished onlyand always based on desert (blameworthiness) alone. A retributivisttypically relies on experts such as moral philosophers to determine whatcounts as just desert. In this context, ‘desert’ is a moral category,(as opposed to a legal one), that refers to whatever is deserved (goodor bad) according to the blameworthiness of conduct.InProf. Robinson’s system of empirical desert, the majority viewdetermines desert. In a retributivist system, who ought to choose themoral category that informs the question of desert? What should thatmoral category be? In other words, in a retributivist Democraticsociety, who should decide the external (extra-majoritarian) measure ofright and wrong? As Samaha points out, some argue that retributivismbased on a non-majoritarian, external morality is insufficientlyrepresentative, even undemocratic. Do you agree?Aconsequentialist position such as empirical desert based on the moralsof the majority also faces challenges. Certain communities at certaintimes may hold discriminatory or immoral views. Consider the AmericanSouth during slavery / Jim Crow, and Nazi Germany. Isn’t the whole pointof morality that there is an “external yardstick” not subject to publicopinion that can be used to measure the morality of current views andopinions? How can consequentialists (preventionists) like Prof. Robinsonaccount for the problem of the immoral majority? Does the possibilityof a “tyranny of the immoral majority” argue in favor of adeontological* approach like retributivism?*Remember to cite to the assigned material in your posts.