Legal Definitions - minimalist retributivism

Minimalist retributivism is a legal philosophy that provides a framework for understanding and limiting punishment. It asserts two main principles:

• First, that punishment is justified primarily because an offenderdeserves it for their wrongdoing (the "retributive" aspect).
• Second, and crucially, that the severity of punishment must not exceed what the offender justly deserves for the specific crime committed (the "minimalist" or limiting aspect).

In essence, minimalist retributivism acts as a protective ceiling on punishment. It ensures that while offenders are held accountable, they are never punished more harshly than their actions warrant, even if other goals like deterring future crime or satisfying public outrage might suggest a more severe penalty. It prioritizes proportionality and just deserts as the ultimate constraints on the state's power to punish.

Here are some examples to illustrate minimalist retributivism:

• Sentencing for a minor property crime: Imagine a person is caught shoplifting a low-value item, like a candy bar, from a grocery store. A purely deterrent approach might argue for a harsh sentence to send a strong message to potential shoplifters. However, under minimalist retributivism, while the individual certainly deserves some form of punishment for theft, that punishment must be proportionate to the minor nature of the crime. It would argue against an excessive penalty, such as a lengthy prison sentence, because such a punishment would far exceed what is justly deserved for stealing a candy bar. The deserved punishment (perhaps a small fine or community service) sets the maximum permissible penalty.

• Resisting calls for extreme penalties in high-profile cases: Consider a highly publicized white-collar crime, such as a large-scale financial fraud that causes significant public outrage and calls for the perpetrator to receive an extremely long prison sentence, perhaps even life imprisonment. A judge operating under minimalist retributivism would acknowledge the severity of the crime and the harm caused, justifying a substantial punishment. However, they would also ensure that the sentence, while severe, does not exceed what is truly deserved based on the specific legal parameters of the fraud and established sentencing guidelines for similar offenses. The public's desire for extreme retribution would be constrained by the principle that punishment must not go beyond what the offender objectively deserves for their actions.

• Limiting punishment for repeat minor offenders: Suppose an individual has a history of several minor offenses, such as repeated public intoxication or petty trespassing. While a system focused solely on incapacitation or deterrence might advocate for increasingly severe penalties for each subsequent offense to try and stop the behavior, minimalist retributivism would argue differently. It would assert that while the individual deserves punishment for each new offense, the punishment for the *current* minor transgression must still be proportionate to *that specific act*. It would prevent a situation where a person receives an extremely long prison sentence for a minor crime simply because it's their fifth or sixth minor offense, if that sentence far exceeds what is deserved for the actual harm caused by the latest incident.