Two ostensibly opposed rationales, retributivism and utilitarianism, have emerged. In the retributivist view, punishment is inherently justified in the act of breaking the law. In the utilitarian view, punishment should produce socially desirable consequences such as deterring others from committing crime, and reforming criminals. A problem with retributivism, a critic might say, is that it would compel punishment even when such punishment would have unfortunate or counterproductive consequences. Critics of utilitarianism may point out that, sometimes, punishing innocent persons may produce socially desirable results and therefore be considered justified. In an extreme scenario, a law enforcement authority may "solve" a serious crime by sacrificing an innocent person, thus avoiding a loss of public confidence. In Part 1, a distinction is drawn between justifying the institution of punishment and justifying its application in particular cases. Some authors lean toward retributivism; some toward utilitarianism. In Part 2, authors address the issue of whether capital punishment is justified. Again, retributivists are pitted against utilitarians--the former favoring and the latter opposing the sanction.