Under the concept of justified punishment, a legal error committed by the judge cannot be appealed if the sentence imposed is equal to that which would have been imposed had the error not been made. Yet justified punishment should no longer be permissible outside of strict cases of application of the new Article 598 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 598 states that when the pronounced penalty is the same as that provided for in the law for the infraction in question, no one can request its annullment under the pretext that the text of the law was misunderstood. The critique of the current predilection for justified punishment concentrates on principle, especially on the weakness of the traditional basis of justified punishment--a lack of advantage for the plaintiff--and on the incompatability of penalties or the indivisibility between the declaration of guilt and the pronouncement of the penalty. Recognition of errors would be more satisfying in most cases as good judges proceed both from the accuracy of their intentions and from the correction of mistaken objectives. In penal matters, error is never free from its effects. To reduce the domain of the application of justified punishment would permit avoiding criticism of injustice. Moreover, return to a strict interpretation of Article 598 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be in harmony with the necessary individualization of punishment which calls for matching a judge's juridical remarks to a delinquent's personality. Finally, it whould be noted that errors causing justified punishment are rare and that biases resulting from the wrongful use of justified punishment can be avoided through a reduction of the provision's application. A total of 76 footnotes are provided. --in French. (Author abstract modified)