The two classic theories of punishment, the retributivist and utilitarian theories, are competing each other. The one is to hold that a wrong act should be punished irrespective of any outcome derived from punishing him, the other is to hold that a wrong act should be punished depending on the outcome derived from punishing him, more precisely solely in terms of its good consequences. The retributivist theory of punishment is essentially correct from the logical point of view in that it fits our intuition more fundamentally which demands either "good for good" or "evil for evil" for justice. Moreover, more importantly, the retributivist theory excels the utilitarian theory, including some mixed theory as a quasi utilitarianism, in that only the former in the practice of punishment is able to defend the equality of individual rights successfully. Unfortunately, not only the utilitarian theory of punishment but also any mixed or hybrid theory falls short. In conclusion I regard legal punishment as individual equality.
Ⅰ. Theories of Punishment<BR>Ⅱ. Utilitarian Arbitrary Deterrence and Rehabilitation<BR>Ⅲ. Hart and Rawls on Utilitarian Arbitrariness<BR>Ⅳ. Some Kosher Rejoinders to Critics<BR>Ⅴ. Conclusion<BR>Works Cited<BR>Abstract<BR>