Mixed crime prevention theories on the aim of punishment

Abstract

The author deals with theories of the aim of punishment, starting from the currently accepted presumption that any of the traditional theories cannot alone convincingly justify the content and limits of punishment. "Mixed theories are therefore unavoidable, although the question of the proportions of different aims of punishment within these theories remains controversial. The author advocates so-called mixed crime prevention theories, which attempt to connect different aspects of special prevention (oriented to rehabilitation) and general prevention, but reject any form of retribution as a goal of punishment. Rejection of retribution as the aim of punishment does not mean rejection of the principle of guilt - because this has the role of foundation and the upper limit of punishment within mixed crime prevention theories. The author also draws attention to some dark sides of these theories, but concludes that they are for the time being the best possibility with regard to the available alternatives.