Retributivist Perspectives on an Offender’s Criminal or Crime-Free Past

Abstract

Proponents of retribution (Just Deserts) as a punishment rationale sharply disagree about whether repeat offenders are more culpable for a new offense, in comparison to offenders with little or no prior record. Some retributivists assert that prior convictions should have no bearing on the offender’s culpability and deserved punishment for his latest offense. Other retributivists argue that first offenders are less culpable and deserve sentence mitigation; some of these writers would extend a lesser degree of mitigation to offenders with only a minor record. A third group of retributivists views prior crimes as an aggravating factor, justifying steady increases in punishment severity as offenders acquire more convictions. This chapter critiques each of these three approaches. It argues that first offenders deserve substantial mitigation, that sentence severity should rise only modestly with additional convictions, and that such enhancements must be “capped” to preserve proportionality to the crime being sentenced.