Abstract

The purpose of Adam Kolber’s magnificent book is to show that a consequentialist theory of punishment is superior to standard retributivism. In this comment I argue that Kolber is right when he rejects the claim that the traditional punishment of the innocent argument provides sufficient grounds for the rejection of consequentialism, but also that it may be the case that threshold retributivism is more attractive than consequentialism when it comes to intuitive fit. Furthermore, it is suggested that this possibility gives rise to a trilemma which Kolber will have to confront in order to ultimately establish the superiority of consequentialism over retributivism.