ABSTRACT
This chapter will deal with the traditional justifying arguments which have been put forward in defence of institutions and acts of punishment. The literature on this subject is vast, and in order to prevent this chapter running to several hundred pages I shall adopt the following method. I shall give an account of three models of justifying argument which I take to encapsulate the essentials of the various traditions. These will consist of backward-looking or desert based justifications; forward-looking or consequentialist justifications; and mixed theories which incorporate both backward and forward-looking elements. Each of these models will be evaluated in terms of the answers which they generate to three central questions: why ought the state to punish individuals or groups; how much punishment ought to be inflicted by the state; and whom ought the state to punish and for what kinds of action? The aim of the chapter will be to argue that no completely convincing justification of the practice of punishment has as yet been put forward.
