This article explores the relationship between the idea that offenders should make reparation to their victims and the principle of ‘just deserts’ or strict proportionality between seriousness of offence and severity of punishment. Some have queried whether these notions are compatible with each other, suggesting that there is relatively little scope for reparative measures in a criminal justice system soundly based on the principle of just deserts.
We defend the reparative principle, arguing that reparation should play a significant rôle in a criminal justice system based on the human rights of victims as well as offenders. Such a rights-based approach also has an important place for the retributive notion of just deserts, but strict proportionality is rejected in favour of an approach whereby the offender's just deserts set upper and lower limits on the sanctions which may be imposed on the offender. Within these limits there should be scope for both victims and offenders to have a say in the nature, form and amount of reparation which is appropriate.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AshworthA.(1992). What victims of crime deserve. Paper presented to the Fulbright Colloquium on Penal Theory and Penal Practice, University of Stirling, September 1992.
2.
AshworthA.(1993a). Some Doubts About Restorative Justice. Criminal Law Forum, 4, 277–299.
3.
AshworthA.(1993b). Victim Impact Statements and Sentencing. [1993] Criminal Law Review, 498–509.
4.
BarnettR.(1977). Restitution: a new paradigm of criminal justice. Ethics: An International Journal of Social, Political and Legal Philosophy, 87 (4), 279–301; reprinted in (1981) Perspectives on Crime Victims. (B. Galaway and J. Hudson, eds.) C.V. Mosby; St. Louis.
5.
BottomleyA.K.(1980). The “Justice Model” in America and Britain: Development and Analysis. In The Coming Penal Crisis: A Criminological and Theological Exploration (BottomsA.E.PrestonR.H., eds) pp. 25–52. Scottish Academic Press; Edinburgh.
6.
BraithwaiteJ.(1989). Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge.
7.
CantorG.M.(1976). An End to Crime and Punishment. The Shingle (Philadelphia Bar Association), 39 (4), 99–114.
8.
CavadinoM(1989). Mental Health Law in Context: Doctors’ Orders?, Dartmouth; Aldershot.
9.
CavadinoM.DignanJ.(1992). The Penal System: An Introduction. Sage Publications; London.
10.
CooperP.(1991). An enquiry into the role of punishment according to blameworthiness in English criminal justice. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sheffield; England.
11.
Crown Prosecution Service (1994). The Code for Crown Prosecutors. Crown Prosecution Service; London.
12.
DavisG.(1992). Making Amends: Mediation and Reparation in Criminal Justice(with H. Messmer, M.S. Umbreit and R.B. Coates). Routledge; London and New York.
13.
DavisG.BoucheratJ.WatsonD.(1988). Reparation in the Service of Diversion: The Subordination of a Good Idea. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 127–262.
14.
DignanJ.(1991). Repairing the Damage: An Evaluation of an Experimental Adult Reparation Scheme in Kettering, Northamptonshire. University of Sheffield Centre for Criminological and Legal Research; Sheffield.
15.
DignanJ.(1994). Reintegration through reparation: a way forward for restorative justice? In Penal Theory and Penal Practice: Tradition and Innovation in Criminal Justice (DuffA.MarshallS.DobashR.E.DobashR.P., eds.) pp. 231–244. Manchester University Press; England.
16.
DignanJ.CavadinoM.(1996). Towards a framework for conceptualising and evaluating victim-oriented models of criminal justice. International Review of Victimology, 4, 153–182.
17.
Director of Public Prosecutions (1986). Code for Crown Prosecutors. Law Society Gazette, 23 July 1986.
18.
DworkinR.(1978). Taking Rights Seriously, (new impression). Gerald Duckworth; London.
19.
GewirthA.(1978). Reason and Morality. University of Chicago Press; Chicago.
20.
GouldC.(1988). Rethinking Democracy. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge.
21.
Home Office (1990). Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public: The Government's Proposals for Legislation, Cm 965. HMSO; London.
22.
HudsonB.(1987). Justice Through Punishment: A Critique of the Justice Model’ of Corrections. Macmillan Education; London.
23.
MorrisN.(1974). The Future of Imprisonment. University of Chicago Press; London.
24.
MorrisN.TonryM.(1990). Between Prison and Probation: Intermediate Punishments in a Rational Sentencing System. Oxford University Press; New York.
NorrieA.(1992). Just Deserts as Legal and Political Rhetoric. Draft of paper presented to the Fulbright Colloquium on Penal Theory and Penal Practice, University of Stirling, September 1992.
27.
RobinsonP.H.(1992). Desert, crime control, disparity, and units of punishment. Paper presented to the Fulbright Colloquium on Penal Theory and Penal Practice, University of Stirling, September 1992.
28.
SebbaL.(1996). Third Parties: Victims and the Criminal Justice System. Ohio State University Press.
29.
ShaplandJ.WillmoreJ.DuffP.(1985). Victims in the Criminal Justice System. Gower; Aldershot(Cambridge Studies in Criminology, 53).
30.
TonryM.(1992). Proportionality, Interchangeability and Intermediate Punishments. Paper presented to the Fulbright Colloquium on Penal Theory and Penal Practice, University of Stirling, September 1992.
31.
Von HirschA.(1976). Doing Justice: The Choice of Punishments(Report of the Committee for the Study of Incarceration). Hill and Wang; New York.
32.
Von HirschA.(1986). Past or Future Crimes: Deservedness and Dangerousness in the Sentencing of Criminals. Manchester University Press; Manchester.
33.
Von HirschA.(1993). Censure and Sanctions, Clarendon Press; Oxford.
34.
WatsonD.BoucheratJ.DavisD.(1989). Reparation for Retributivists. In Mediation and Criminal Justice: Victims, Offenders and Community (WrightM.GalawayB., eds) Sage; London.
35.
WrightM.(1991). Justice for Victims and Offenders. Open University Press; Milton Keynes.
36.
ZednerL.(1994). Reparation and Retribution: Are They Reconcilable?Modern Law Review, 57, 228–250.
