A theory requiring consequentialist grounds for punishment's general aim concedes that punishment would be unjustifiable if deterrence or rehabilitation failed, which pure retributivism denies.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Deterrence(as used in criminal justice): Discouraging someone from doing something (usually a crime) by threatening punishment or making them afraid of the consequences.
Pure retributivism(contrasted with consequentialist approaches in the statement): A strict version of retributivism that justifies punishment solely because wrongdoers deserve it, without needing to prove it prevents future crimes or reforms people.
Rehabilitation(as used in criminal justice): The process of helping someone change their harmful behavior and become a better person, rather than simply punishing them.
Retributivism(as used in ethics and justice philosophy): A theory of punishment that says people deserve to be punished in proportion to the harm they caused—the worse the crime, the harsher the punishment should be.

Based on where you are in your exploration