ABSTRACT
The institution of state punishment is so widespread in the contemporary world that the question of justifying its very existence does not often arise. This is partly because the answer seems so obvious. Without any structure of positive sanctions in place, it is assumed, normal social transactions could not be governed by law. Without any mechanism for coercion or enforcement of legal norms, we could hardly speak of a legal system at all. Close analysis of the justification of punishment, however, reveals serious tensions, not only between competing theoretical perspectives but also between conflicting practical attitudes on questions about what kinds of punishment are morally acceptable. Various defences of the existing systems offer inconsistent accounts of the principles underlying punishment. They also collide with proposals for penal reform and even with frankly abolitionist arguments. What philosophical analysis over the last few centuries has aimed at is a clear examination of the principles in conflict here.
