The Kantian View:  CP ought to be focused on the past.  The criminal has a right to be punished.

Punishment defined:  harm or deprivation - to make a person worse off.  What entitles us to punish others?  The two general views are the forward and backward looking theories.  Punishment is justified because the person who did the wrong CHOSE his punishment and in punishment, we are HONORING that person's choices.

Details of Punishment:
    1.  Inflicting harm or pain or other unpleasant circumstances.
    2.  Must be inflicted only when there is some presumption of past wrong-doing.

A utilitarian critique of CP:  the acceptability of inflicting harm must derive from future consequences -- good consequences must result.

    Critique of utilitarian view -
        i.  It ignores that fact that we are often backward looking.  Deserving a paycheck is based on having WORKED for it (past tense), not on the benefit of getting one.
        ii. A plausible view requires that we see punishment ALSO as a deterrent.

The Lex Talionis view:  An eye for an eye -- But most wrongs do not have analogous injuries applicable to the offender.  Punishment must be in accordance with human dignity.

Who does murder justify CP?
    i.  It is the death of another person
    ii.  Undermines the social fabric of a community.  Life imprisonment is not justifed or adequate because it makes the person dependent.

Hegel/Kant - the offender is honored as a raitonal being - punishment is his right.
        Reward and punishment are both instances of respecting persons.
        The "therapy/rehabilitation" model is inappropriate - a person in this sense is not even seen as a moral agent - and as a moral agent, a person has a right to be punished, not "treated" as though his or her actions are a disease or something to be cured.