ABSTRACT
One of the functions of philosophy is to combat ambiguity and muddle. Yet in discussions of the justification of punishment, philosophers persist in talking of ‘retribution’ and ‘retributive theory’ as if the labels stood for something relatively simple and straightforward. Exactly how or why suffering something unpleasant should count as payment for an offence is left unexplained; but it has to be admitted that the notion is both ancient and widely held. Kant, universally regarded as a retributivist, asserts that the reason why punishment is imposed must always be because the individual on whom it is inflicted has committed a crime. Failure to punish is unfair to those who practise self-restraint and respect the rights of others. The logic of justification implied by Kant seems heavily tied up with the Old Testament notions of sacrifice and placation. Murder involves blood guilt for which an angry God will take vengeance.
