Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp 659–683 | Cite as

Incapacitation and Just Deserts as Motives for Punishment

  • John M. Darley
  • Kevin M. Carlsmith
  • Paul H. Robinson


What motivates a person's desire to punish actors who commit intentional, counternormative harms? Two possible answers are a just deserts motive or a desire to incarcerate the actor so that he cannot be a further danger to society. Research participants in two experiments assigned punishments to actors whose offenses were varied with respect to the moral seriousness of the offense and the likelihood that the perpetrator would commit similar future offenses. Respondents increased the punishment as the seriousness of the offense increased, but their sentences were not affected by variations in the likelihood of committing future offenses, suggesting that just deserts was the primary sentencing motive. Only in a case in which a brain tumor was identified as the cause of an actor's violent action, a case that does not fit the standard prototype of a crime intentionally committed, did respondents show a desire to incarcerate the actor in order to prevent future harms rather than assigning a just deserts based punishment.


Brain Tumor Social Psychology Research Participant Violent Action Future Harm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, M. C. & MacCoun, R. J. (1999). Goal conflict in juror assessments of compensatory and punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 313–330.Google Scholar
  2. Baron, R. M.& Kenny, D.A(1986). Themoderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.Google Scholar
  3. Bentham, J. (1962). Principles of penal law. In J. Bowring (Ed.), The works of Jeremy Bentham (p. 396). Edinburgh: Tait.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlational analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Cook, P. J. (1977). Punishment and crime: A critique of current findings concerning the preventative effect of punishment. Law and Contemporary Problems, 41, 164–172.Google Scholar
  6. Finkel, N. J., Maloney, S. T., Valbuena, M. Z., & Groscup, J. (1996). Recidivism, proportionalism, and individualized punishment. American Behavioral Scientist, 39, 474–487.Google Scholar
  7. Greenwald, A. G. (1976). Within-subjects designs: To use or not to use? Psychological Bulletin, 83, 314–320.Google Scholar
  8. Hans, V. P. (1986). An analysis of public attitudes toward the insanity defense. Criminology, 24, 393–414.Google Scholar
  9. Hogan, R. & Emler, N. (1981). Retributive justice. In M. Lerner (Ed.), The justice motive in social behavior. New York, Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hogarth, J. (1974). Sentencing as a human process. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  11. Judd, C. M. & McClelland, G. H. (1989). Data analysis: A model comparison approach. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  12. Kant, I. (1952). The science of right (W. Hastie, trans.). In Robert Hutchins (Ed.), Great books of the Western world, Vol. 42,: Kant (pp. 397–446). Chicago: Encylopaedia Britannica.Google Scholar
  13. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lungren, D. (1997, February 24). Our tough law works. USA Today, p. 10A.Google Scholar
  15. Nisbett, R. E. & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.Google Scholar
  16. Robinson, P. H. & Darley, J. M. (1995). Justice, liability and blame: Community views and the criminal law. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  17. Robinson, P. H. & Darley, J. M. (1997). The utility of desert. Northwestern University Law Review, 91, 453–499.Google Scholar
  18. Rossi, P. H., Waite, E., Bose, C. E., & Berk, R. E. (1974). The seriousness of crimes: Normative structure and individual differences. American Sociological Review, 39, 224–237.Google Scholar
  19. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.Google Scholar
  20. Tyler, T. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Tyler, T. & Boeckmann, R. (1997). Three strikes and you are out, but why? The psychology of public support for punishing rule breakers. Law and Society Review, 31, 237–264.Google Scholar
  22. Vidmar, N. & Miller, D. (1980). Social psychological processes underlying attitudes toward legal punishment. Law and Society Review, 14, 565–602.Google Scholar
  23. Warr, M., Meier, R. F., & Erickson, M. L. (1983). Norms, theories of punishment, and publicly preferred penalties for crimes. Sociological Quarterly, 24, 75–91.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychology Association 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • John M. Darley
    • 1
  • Kevin M. Carlsmith
    • 2
  • Paul H. Robinson
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyPrinceton UniversityPrinceton
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyPrinceton UniversityPrinceton
  3. 3.School of LawNorthwestern UniversityEvanston

Personalised recommendations