RETRIBUTIONISTS AGREE THAT THE MORE SERIOUS THE OFFENSE, THE MORE SERIOUS THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE. THE PROBLEM ARISES BECAUSE SOME SAY RAPE IS MORE SERIOUS THAN ROBBERY, WHILE OTHERS FEEL THAT IF NO HARM IS DONE, THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE MILDER. REHABILITATION, DETERRENCE, AND PROTECTION ARE TOGETHER CONSIDERED THE 'UTILITARIAN' OR 'RESULTS' THEORY OF PUNISHMENT. ON PAPER THESE CONCEPTS SOUND AS THOUGH THEY WOULD PROMOTE GOOD AND/ OR PREVENT EVIL. THEIR IMPLEMENTATION, HOWEVER CAN BE QUITE THE OPPOSITE, AS THE MISUSE OF 'CORRECTION' CAMPS IN THE SOVIET UNION ILLUSTRATES. THE QUESTION OF WHO SHOULD ENFORCE THE LAWS IS CONSIDERED. PRIVATE ACTION TENDS TO BE CAPRICIOUS, WHILE GOVERNMENTAL BODIES ARE INEFFICIENT. THE SUGGESTION HAS BEEN MADE THAT PERSONS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PROTECT THEMSELVES BUT THAT NO PUNISHMENTS BE MEASURED OUT IN CASE THE PROTECTION FAILS. THE QUESTION IS, TO WHAT DEGREE SHOULD A PERSON BE ALLOWED TO PROTECT HIMSELF? ANY THEORY OF PUNISHMENT INVOLVES PART OF A GROUP INFLICTING ITS VIEWS ON ALL THE GROUP. THIS DILEMMA MAKES THE PROBLEM OF PUNISHMENT ONE OF THE MOST INTRACTABLE IN ALL OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY.