Consequentialist theories justify punishment on the basis of social benefit. They are classified as forward-looking because they take the future benefit of society to be a necessary condition for punishment. Criticisms of consequentialist approaches center on worries that social utility will take precedence over wrongdoers' rights or even lead to the punishment of innocents. Another important criticism--one seldom mentioned by philosophers but increasingly discussed in social debate--is that the victim's concerns may be overridden by those of society.

Mixed theories, of which H.L.A. Hart's is perhaps the best example, rightly attempt to incorporate a plurality

of reasons for punishment.(Hart, 1968) According to Hart, the inadequacies of theories which attempt to justify punishment based on a single principle can be met by one that incorporates partly discrepant principles by separating the distinct questions involved in justifying the social institution. The key to Hart's proposal is the distinction he makes between retribution as a general justifying aim and retribution in distribution. Whereas taking retribution as a justifying aim would conflict with the aim of social benefit, retribution in distribution merely places a restriction on the unqualified pursuit of that aim. Limiting the consequentialist aim in this way avoids the conflict. It also satisfies our intuition that punishment should be applied only to the guilty.

1. Hart, Prolegomenon to the Principles of Punishment, in Punishment And Responsibility: Essays In The Philosophy Of Law 1-27 (1968).

Desensitization, for example, refers to a group of techniques, which permit the wrongdoer to inflict on a fellow human being the pain and suffering the crime will cause. Fattah notes that "unless the victimizer becomes desensitized in advance, the victimization is bound to create moral tension and to elicit feelings of guilt, shame, remorse and reproach in the perpetrator."(21) The various techniques include denial of the victim, objectifying her, denying any injury, blaming the victim, and devaluing her.

3. Fattah, E.A. Understanding Criminal Victimization: An Introduction To Theoretical Victimology 136 (1991) Leuven University ss.

From the community's perspective as a stakeholder, the sentence may communicate specific and general deterrence and authoritative disavowal of the crime to all the audiences for the communication. It can and should affirm the community's values to all. And it also should serve as a way of standing up for the victim, signifying approval of an appropriate level of resentment and acknowledging his suffering. From the victim's perspective, the sentence should serve as an appropriate, public expression of his resentment and associated condemnation of the wrongdoer. It can and should communicate in a strong way his demand for at least a minimum degree of respect. From the wrongdoer's perspective, in those cases where she repents, certain types of sentences may signify to the victim and community her guilt and remorse--sentences incorporating restitution for example. It is worth mentioning here that the alternative sentencing recommended by proponents of restorative justice--victim/offender mediation, offender/community restitution and sentencing circles, for example--appears to emphasize just the kind of personal interaction and communication recommended by this naturalistic approach. I evaluate such alternatives in relation to the victim's role in the section on practical applications.

The social institution of punishment serves as a way to communicate the natural moral demand from various stakeholders to a diversity of audiences. The explanation of why and how the social institution can be an appropriate communica

Some topics in this essay:
Feinberg Primoratz, According Mackie, ESSAY Retributive, According Hart, Ezzat Fattah, Jeffrie Murphy, John Mackie, HLA Hart's, Philosophy Law, social institution, Leslie Mahaffy, justifying aim, plurality aims, reasons punishment, express communicate, victim community, justify punishment, criminal legislation, aim punishment, social benefit, justifying reasons punishment, hart's mixed theory, moral psychologies involved, basis social benefit, punishment basis social,