How to Delimit the Desert Base of Criminal Offenders: On Roberts’ Dynamic Censure Model

One of the central ideas of modern retributivism is the view that an offender’s desert should be determined by the nature of the crime that has been committed. This cannot be changed by whatever follows the crime when the criminal court metes out the appropriate sentence or, indeed, after the sentence has been determined. But is it plausible to maintain that the desert of an offender should be determined solely by aspects of the crime and, therefore, by something that remains invariant after the crime? Julian V Roberts has, in several works, challenged the static element of standard retributivist theory. What he has proposed is a dynamic desert model according to which various aspects of an offender’s post-crime and post-sentence conduct should be regarded as carrying retributive significance. The purpose of this chapter is to critically examine Roberts’ dynamic desert model. It is argued, on the one hand, that several of the challenges facing traditional static accounts of retributivism are radically exacerbated by introducing a dynamic account of desert, but also, on the other, that Roberts’ considerations cannot just be brushed aside by adherents of static accounts of retributivism.