Better than they deserve
Whilst acknowledging that the ideal solution to wrongful convictions lies in reforming the process itself, addressing these systemic faults will not be the panacea to preventing miscarriages of justice, as it ignores the reality of human error and the unattainability of an infallible system. Leniency, in this case, is not a replacement for a fair process but instead acts as a safety net for when that process, despite our best efforts, goes wrong. Proportionality can still be maintained alongside this leniency by using the hybrid theory of limiting retributivism. This approach offers a comprehensive framework that directly addresses the core tensions this essay has explored, while still ultimately ‘treating offenders better than they deserve’. It redefines retribution’s role from dictating a single penalty to establishing a ‘range of morally justified punishments, setting upper and lower limits on the severity of penalties that may fairly be imposed on a given offender’. 19 By establishing a range on the severity of penalties an offender can receive determined by their desert, other case-specific sentencing goals can also be pursued, such as incapacitation, rehabilitation, and deterrence, while still promoting a degree of proportionality and fairness. While this model is logically sound, its primary obstacle remains a political climate that often prioritizes punitive measures over evidence-based reform. In conclusion, this essay has argued that the law must look beyond rigid retribution, as treating offenders ‘better than they deserve’ is a pragmatic and moral necessity. The evidence demonstrates that a utilitarian approach is superior in reducing recidivism and allowing for crucial legal flexibility, while a commitment to human dignity is essential to safeguard against the system’s own inherent fallibility. The challenge of balancing these competing principles is resolved by the hybrid model of limiting retributivism. By establishing a deserved range of punishments rather than a single point, it successfully integrates the retributive need for proportionality with the forward-looking goals of rehabilitation and crime prevention. Ultimately, treating offenders better than their retributive desert demands is not an act of abandoning justice, but of pursuing a more intelligent, humane, and effective form of it.
19 See 3.
152
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting