Criminal law general theory is focused on a regulatory system crucial to strike a balance between society and state (as a Leviathan). The classical theories on punishment point out problems, without finding solutions. For the society well-being the Leviathan must be strong, but in chains. From the said perspective, also in light of the experiences of this troubling period, the paper points out some regulatory technique issues as well as ways of dealing with crime.
Scholars influenced by German criminal law scholarship commonly divide theories about the justification of punishment in retribution-based and prevention-based theories. In doing this, they seem to closely track the dis- tinction between deontological theories and consequentialist theories now prevalent in contemporary normative ethics.This structural analogy allows the use of developments in normative ethics to test the coherence of the justification of punishment prevalent on German-influenced scholars. When this is done, it is apparent that there is no such coherence: inasmuch as this scholarship claims to follow a preventive (necessarily consequentialist) logic, it is incoherent in not paying attention to the empirical investigation on the different ways to achieve crime prevention; inasmuch as it embraces deontological postulates, it is incoherent because it severs the double role (both grounding and limiting) played by desert in the analysis of the justification of punishment.
O artigo pretende demonstrar a inexatidão da classificação dicotômica da pena criminal – entre doutrinas absolutas e relativas – que confunde o fundamento da pena com as suas eventuais diversas finalidades. Para isso aborda e rejeita as propostas das doutrinas unificadoras. Por fim, assume como fundamento da pena exclusivamente a justa retribuição da culpa do agente causador da ofensa ao bem jurídico. Ao passado que a determinação das finalidades da pena consiste num problema que dependente de estudo criminológico das especificidades do fenômeno criminal em questão.