II. Responding to Objections from Respectarians and Egalitarians
Some punishment theories including respectarianism and comparative egalitarianism seek to uphold the need for equal treatment and the dignity of the offender. However, these do not seem to be adequate to overcome the overall conflict in which Yost seeks to address regarding the influence of punishment to structural oppression. In assessing these theories, Yost makes the point that the main conflict resulting from differential punishment is the way in which our institutions are unfairly structured, and this cannot be resolved simply through respectarianism or comparative egalitarian systems of punishment.
Respectarianism is a non-comparative model of punishment which only looks…show more content… Therefore, they object to any kind of comparative assessment which considers like cases in determining fair treatment. However, Yost responds that even in attempting to uphold the dignity of the offender, respectarianism is non-comparative and, therefore, permits differential punishment. Non-comparativism cannot serve as a fair, retributive system of justice because it fails to consider treatment comparatively, thus allowing for disproportionate treatment of like offenses and even differential incarceration which may be unwarranted (20). Further, it cannot account for the implicit biases that continue to exist in the United States. Examples include studies described by Yost in which implicit cognition association research “indicates racial bias is nigh ubiquitous, even among those who espouse egalitarian ideals” (15). Specifically, he mentions the continued influence of implicitly, and even explicitly, associating blackness to criminality in policing and trial procedures (15). Even though the Batson v. Kentucky case in 1985 had ruled that courts must have fair juries, a precedence was set after the Purkett v. Elm 1995 case to permit prosecutors to dismiss a jury member for any “race-neutral reason, no matter how…show more content… To comparatively and justly punish those who commit offenses, we must first resolve the oppressive nature of the communities in which they commit offenses. This means ensuring fairness in the distribution of basic goods necessary to flourish. Individuals are justified access to at least basic goods necessary to flourish because no one can control to what circumstances or race they are born too, and therefore, no one is more deserving than another for at least the most basic resources. Black individuals are not only targeted more often under policies of broken window policing, but trial processes also allow differential punishment to persist, specifically in relation to drug convictions. Additionally, the communities with low-income black individuals often endure greater pressures and disadvantages in ways that white offenders may not experience, depending on their socioeconomic circumstances. Yost proposes that to remedy this situation, improving our policing procedures and trial procedures may help against differential punishment. Additionally, I also find that the most important task in eliminating differential punishment is to improve access to basic goods. Specifically, to provide adequate schooling which leads an individual to morally consider the disadvantages
