The Time-Frame Challenge to Retributivism

Abstract

Retributivists believe that criminal offenders should suffer or be punished in proportion to what they morally deserve. There is, however, an often-ignored debate about whether desert should be assessed across a person’s life (the whole-life view) or only for crimes that are the subject of a current sentencing proceeding (the current-crime view). Both options are unappealing. The whole-life view may be superior on theoretical grounds but is hopelessly impractical. The current-crime view is somewhat more practical but has no solid theoretical foundation. The lack of a suitable time frame in which to assess desert represents an important challenge to retributivist conceptions of proportionality. Even uncertainty about the proper time frame may itself be detrimental to some retributivists’ hopes of justifying the incarcerative sentences of particular offenders.