The philosophical discussion of state punishment is well on in years. In contrast with a large number of ethical problems which are concerned with right and wrong in relation to a narrowly specified area of human life and practice and which hav- at least since the early 70¿s - been regarded as a legitimate part of philosophical thinking constituting the area of applied ethics, reflections on punishment can be traced much further back in the history of western philosophy. This is not surprising. That the stately mandated infliction of death, suffering, or deprivation on citizens should be met with hesitation - from which ethical reflections may depar- seems obvious. Such a practice certainly calls for some persuasive justification. It is therefore natural that reflective minds have for a long time devoted attention to punishment and that the question of how a penal system can be justified has constituted the central question in philosophical discussion. Though it would certainly be an exaggeration to claim that the justification question is the only aspect of punishment with which philosophers have been concerned, there has in most periods been a clear tendency to regard this as the cardinal issue. Comparatively much less attention has been devoted to the more precise questions of how, and how much, criminals should be punished for their respective wrong-doings. This may, of course, be due to several reasons.

Introduction. 1. Why consider proportionalism? 2. A brief overview. Notes. 1: Proportionalism and its Justifications. 1. What is proportionalism? 2. The simple desert theory. 3. The expressionist theory. 4. The fairness Theory. 5. A non-foundationalist approach. 6. Conclusion. Notes. 2: The Seriousness of Crimes. 1. The harm dimension. 2. Culpability. 3. Recidivism. 4. Proportionalist answers. 5. A fairness-theoretic approach. 6. Conclusion. Notes. 3: The Severity of Punishments. 1. The sensibility challenge. 2. Delimitating punitive suffering. 3. Resorting to mercy. 4. Conclusion. Notes. 4: The Anchor Problem. 1. Ratio, interval, and ordinal matchings. 2. Anchor points and human dignity. 3. Desert, prevention, and parsimony. 4. Conclusion. Notes. 5: Proportionalism and Penal Practice. 1. The challenge of self-defeatingness. 2. Justice in an unjust society. 3. Conclusion. Notes. 6: Relaxed Proportionality. 1. Problems and promises. 2. Modified proportionalism. 3. Conclusion. Notes. Bibliography. Index.