The dominant justifications for criminal punishment are typically committed to proportionality with a bias towards leniency. Over-punishment is more troubling than under-punishment. In practice, proportionality depends on the institutional framework governing criminal justice practices. Recent social scientific research has generated important insights about the relationship between institutions and punitive outcomes that are relevant for these dominant punishment philosophies. We survey this evidence alongside a framework that explains why more centralized and hierarchically managed institutions are associated with harsher punishments than more polycentric institutions. Centralized criminal justice institutions thus face a greater justificatory burden than polycentric systems.
Theories of punishment that aim to justify harsh treatment of criminals typically include some proviso about the fittingness1 of punishment.2 “Let the punishment fit the crime.” Such statements indicate there should be a positive relationship between the severity of the crime and the severity of the punishment. If a punishment causes a...
