Communicative retributivism holds that censure is deserved for wrongdoing, but hard treatment is at best justified either instrumentally (for deterrence or incapacitation) or to give meaning to the censure.
The actual painful or difficult consequences imposed on someone as punishment, like prison time or fines, as opposed to just being told they did something wrong.
Incapacitation(as used in criminal justice)
Preventing someone from committing crimes by making it physically impossible for them to do so, like locking them in prison.
Instrumentally justified(as used in ethics)
Something is considered right or acceptable because it's useful for achieving some practical goal, rather than being good in itself.
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.
Communicative retributivism is another variation on retributivism, this time embracing skepticism that the hard treatment element of punishment is itself deserved. What is left then is the thought that censure is deserved for wrongdoing, but that hard treatment is at best justified either instrumentally, for deterrence or incapacitation, or to give meaning to the censure (see Duff 2001: 29–30, 97; Tadros 2011: ch. 5). Insofar as retributive justifications for the hard treatment element of punishment seem inadequate—see section 5—this may be the best default position for retributivists.