Legal Definitions - maximalist retributivism

Maximalist retributivism is a philosophy of punishment that asserts the primary, and often sole, purpose of punishment is to ensure offenders receive their "just deserts." This means the punishment should perfectly match the moral gravity and harm caused by their crime.

This approach emphasizes that society has a moral duty to impose a penalty that is precisely proportionate to the wrongdoing, focusing purely on justice for the past act rather than on future outcomes like deterring others or rehabilitating the offender. It seeks to balance the scales of justice by inflicting a penalty that mirrors the offense's severity, with little to no consideration for other factors.

• Example 1: Strict Sentencing for Premeditated Crimes

  Imagine a legal system where a person convicted of a premeditated, violent assault, resulting in severe injury, automatically receives the maximum possible sentence allowed by law, such as 20 years in prison. This sentence is imposed regardless of the offender's personal history, potential for rehabilitation, or whether a shorter sentence might deter others. The rationale is that the extreme moral culpability and harm of the crime demand the most severe punishment available, purely as a matter of justice for the victim and society.

  This illustrates maximalist retributivism because the focus is entirely on the inherent wrongness and severity of the crime itself, demanding a punishment that precisely reflects that gravity, without significant consideration for other goals like rehabilitation or deterrence.

• Example 2: Opposition to Early Release or Parole Based on Good Behavior

  Consider a scenario where an individual is sentenced to a fixed term of 15 years for a serious fraud scheme that caused widespread financial devastation. After 7 years, the individual has shown exemplary behavior in prison, participated in all available educational programs, and expressed deep remorse. A maximalist retributivist perspective would argue strongly against any form of early release or parole, insisting that the full 15-year sentence must be served. The argument would be that the 15 years was the "just desert" determined for the crime, and releasing the offender early, even for good behavior, would undermine the principle that the punishment must fully match the offense's severity.

  This demonstrates maximalist retributivism by prioritizing the original, proportionate punishment for the crime over considerations of the offender's transformation or potential for successful reintegration into society. The full "debt to society" as determined by the initial sentence is seen as non-negotiable, reflecting the belief that the punishment must precisely balance the scales of justice for the past wrong.

• Example 3: Disregarding Mitigating Circumstances in Sentencing

  Suppose a person commits a significant act of vandalism, causing extensive property damage. Even if the offender can prove they were suffering from severe mental health issues at the time, were under extreme duress, or had no prior criminal record, a maximalist retributivist approach might argue that these mitigating factors should not substantially reduce the sentence. The primary focus would remain on the actual harm caused by the vandalism and the moral culpability of the act, demanding a penalty (e.g., a substantial fine and community service) that directly corresponds to the damage inflicted, irrespective of the offender's personal circumstances or potential for rehabilitation.

  This illustrates maximalist retributivism by showing how the philosophy prioritizes the "just desert" for the *act* itself (the property damage and its moral wrongness) over other considerations like the offender's personal circumstances or the potential for a more lenient sentence to encourage reform. The punishment is strictly tied to the offense's severity.