THE CENTRAL PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEM INVOLVED IN THE STATE'S PUNISHMENT OF ITS CITIZENS IS ONE OF JUSTIFICATION; NAMELY, WHAT MORAL RIGHT DOES ANY STATE HAVE TO DEPRIVE OFFENDING CITIZENS OF PROPERTY BY FINING THEM OR OF LIBERTY BY IMPRISONING THEM? THE THEOLOGICAL THEORY HOLDS THAT ANY STATE HAS A DUTY TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS BY DETERRING POTENTIAL OFFENDERS WITH THREATS OF PUNISHMENT, AND, TO A MUCH LESSER EXTENT, PREVENTING ACTUAL OFFENDERS FROM OFFENDING AGAIN BY IMPRISONING THEM. THE THEORY OF RETRIBUTION HAS ALSO BEEN PROPOSED AS JUSTIFICATION FOR PUNISHMENT, BUT WITH MUCH LESS CLARITY. THIS THEORY CLAIMS THAT PUNISHMENT 'ANNULS THE CRIME, WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN HELD VALID, AND RESTORES THE RIGHT.'IT ESSENTIALLY HOLDS THAT THE STATE HAS THE DUTY TO SEE THAT WHEN ONE CITIZEN DEPRIVES ANOTHER OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW, THE OFFENDER IS COMPELLED TO RESTORE THE RIGHT DEPRIVED. IN THE CASE OF THEFT, RETRIBUTION WOULD MEAN HAVING THE OFFENDER RESTORE THE STOLEN PROPERTY TO THE VICTIM. IN THE CASE OF PHYSICAL INJURY, IT WOULD MEAN HAVING THE OFFENDER GIVE THE VICTIM THE AMOUNT OF MONEY LOST FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT OR ABSENCE FROM WORK. IN THE CASE OF HOMICIDE, THE OFFENDER WOULD PAY A DETERMINED AMOUNT OF MONEY TO THE VICTIM'S FAMILY. THE STATE WOULD NOT BE AN INSTRUMENT OF REVENGE AGAINST THE OFFENDER, BUT A POWERFUL ADMINISTRATOR WHOSE OBJECTIVE WOULD BE TO REDUCE, NORMALLY AT THE EXPENSE OF THE OFFENDER, THE CONSEQUENCE OF A CRIME TO A VICTIM. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RETRIBUTIVE, DETERRENT, AND PREVENTIVE PUNISHMENT IS ALSO DISCUSSED. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)