OVERVIEW

The consequentialist solution to the problem of punishment is forward-looking. It explains the moral permissibility of harming someone now in terms of the positive consequences that it can be presumed to bring about in the future. The retributivist solution to the problem of punishment is backward-looking. It explains the moral permissibility of harming someone now in terms of the wrongness of what the person did in the past. I have argued that both solutions are unsuccessful. If I am correct, then the defender of punishment would seem to have only three remaining options. One option is to identify some other consideration that could justify harming people who break the law. This option will be examined in the first two sections of this chapter. In Section 4.1, I will consider the view that punishment is morally permissible because offenders consent to being punished, and in Section 4.2, I will consider the view that punishment is permissible because society has a right to express its disapproval of unlawful behavior. A second option is to deny that punishment ultimately harms the person punished. This option will be examined in Section 4.3, where I will consider the moral education theory of punishment, on which punishment is justified because it ultimately benefits the person punished. The final option is to concede that punishment ultimately harms the person punished, and that no single forward- or backward-looking consideration can render it permissible, but to maintain that some suitable combination of forward- and backward-looking considerations will prove sufficient.