In his book Punishment, Crime, and Market Forces, Leslie Wilkins attempts to explain why western democracies that appear so similar differ so greatly in their incarceration rates. One motivation for the study is the belief, held by Wilkins, that arbitrary variation in the level of punishment across countries is incompatible with the concept of justice. Wilkins rejects the commonly held view that incarceration rates can be explained by crime rates. Rather, "it is the use of punishment which must be studied in its own right" (Wilkins, pp. 13). In particular, in responding to variations in public demands for punishment, a society's criminal justice system largely determines the incarceration rate. Wilkins argues that popular ideas about crime are so overly simplified that they result in an unacceptable (and sometimes hazardous) distortion of reality. In particular, he holds that the concept of just desserts (because of its false simplicity) ought to be reconsidered and rejected. For if it were true that "the punishment could fit the crime" then we ought not to see such drastic variation in the incarceration rates of western countries. In explaining the reasons for the variation in incarceration rates, Wilkins rejects any sort of a conspiracy theory, instead examining the public demand (or attitudes) for punishment. The demand for punishment, he argues, is a moral attitude which hangs together in "value packages" (ibid., pp. 108). Wilkins holds that moral attitudes are learned from other people, especially organized social and religious groups. For example, he asserts that the demand for the death penalty, is packaged together with preferences for certain economic policies, views on human rights, and religious fundamentalism (ibid., pp. 109). Given these observations, Wilkins attempts to explain the demand for punishment as the expression of a "syntax of personal values"-or a "grammar of values." In particular, he connects the current demands for punishment with a country's verbal and written language-which he concludes "is embedded in social experiences" (ibid., pp. 132). Countries with disproportionately high rates of incarceration thus may be said to have a similar "grammar of values." This "pro-incarceration" (also called "individual blame allocation") grammar is characterized by an anti-intellectual tendency to impose micro models on macro level problems. Another typical characteristic is the belief that if a right decision is made, "there is no need to speculate about its consequences" (ibid., pp. 144). However, Wilkins finds that the major characteristic of public opinion supporting high rates of incarceration is the separation of morality into dichotomous categories-right & wrong, true & false, and black & white. Wilkins calls this sort of simplification "extremism." And since this sort of thinking helps maintain the status quo, it is often supported by politicians who may be aware of the true complexity of social problems. Incarceration, Wilkins argues, has to be justified in moral terms. In searching for potential justifications, political leaders most often turn to religion. For "the fundamentalists' claim that 'simple is true' provides a convenient strategy for avoiding the true complexity of crime & punishment" (ibid., pp. 155). Yet since this dualistic logic cannot accommodate the complexity of the real world, Wilkins asserts that it will always provide unsatisfactory conclusions and poor penal policy. Given these overall findings and conclusions, Wilkins believes that no progress can be made in penology "without a far better informed environment of public opinion" (ibid., pp. 164). All criminal justice policy, he argues, must be based upon an assessment of future outcomes. In particular, he asserts that the public must rely more on scientific language, thinking, and logic in understanding crime and punishment. If this were done, individual blame allocation could no longer be continued. For individual level blame allocation serves to reinforce the status quo by assuring us that there is nothing wrong with our (macro) social system (ibid., pp. 69). Consequently, Wilkins contends that our system of punishment will never be reformed until we consider it on a macro level.