Article

Reconceptualizing the Philosophy of Penal Legitimacy: Human Dignity and an Integrated Theory of Criminal Justice

Md Sohel Rana ORCID

    Received: 7 July 2026 | Revised: 28 September 2026 | Accepted: 8 October 2026 | Published Online: 20 October 2026

    Abstract

    Criminal punishment represents an ongoing challenge to normative justification because it involves the state’s use of coercive power against people who are believed to be guilty of misconduct. This study explores how the concepts of retributivism, consequentialism, communicativeness, restitution, rehabilitation, dignity-based methods, and free will skepticism may be combined to form a single theory of criminal justice legitimacy. The Dignity-Centred Integrated Model of Criminal Justice (DCIMCJ) is developed using a qualitative, conceptual, and normative approach to philosophical analysis, as well as a jurisprudential review of doctrine. The model has three functionally connected dimensions: justifiable punitive intervention, human dignity as a limitation to penal power, and social justice as a norm of institutional legitimacy. Culpability and proportionality serve as safeguards against unreasonable and disproportionate punishment, whereas prevention, rehabilitation, communication, and restoration constitute valid criminal justice aims or approaches. This paradigm also integrates free will skepticism since it allows reasons for preventative actions and rehabilitation without requiring basic moral deserts in all cases of punishment. The use of preventative detention, automated decision making, and corporate and environmental criminality demonstrates how vital this approach is. It is concluded that the legitimacy of criminal justice requires not only legal authority to punish, but also justifiable, proportional, dignified, and institutionally impartial action.

    Keywords

    Criminal Justice, Philosophy of Punishment, Human Dignity, Criminal Responsibility, Proportionality, SocialJustice

    References
    1. [1] Hart, H.L.A., 1968. Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.
    2. [2] Husak, D., 2026. Taking Retributive Value Seriously. Criminal Law and Philosophy. 20, 45–67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-025-09762-x
    3. [3] Brown Coverdale, H., 2025. Putting Proportional Punishment into Perspective. Criminal Law and Philosophy. 19, 181–201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-024-09736-5
    4. [4] Wang, X., Wu, Y.C., Ji, X., et al., 2024. Algorithmic Discrimination: Examining Its Types and Regulatory Measures with Emphasis on US Legal Practices. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. 7, 1320277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1320277
    5. [5] Lee, Y., Bradford, B., Posch, K., 2024. The Effectiveness of Big Data-Driven Predictive Policing: Systematic Review. Justice Evaluation Journal. 7(2), 127–160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/24751979.2024.2371781
    6. [6] Zimran, A., Dagan, N., 2025. Crime, Character, and the Evolution of the Penal Message. Criminal Law and Philosophy. 19, 39–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-024-09732-9
    7. [7] Rossner, M., Taylor, H., 2024. The Transformative Potential of Restorative Justice: What the Mainstream Can Learn from the Margins. Annual Review of Criminology. 7, 357–381. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-030421-040921
    8. [8] Wood, W.R., Suzuki, M., 2024. Getting to Accountability in Restorative Justice. Victims & Offenders. 19(7), 1400–1423. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2024.2333304
    9. [9] Procter-Legg, T., Hobson, J., Quimby, E., 2024. Restorative Justice and Social Justice: An International Perspective. Contemporary Justice Review. 27(2–3), 218–238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2024.2414953
    10. [10] Li, J.C.M., Zhang, S.Y., Sun, I.Y., et al., 2024. Police Legitimacy and Procedural Justice for Children and Youth: A Scoping Review of Definitions, Determinants, and Consequences. Frontiers in Sociology. 9, 1409080. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2024.1409080
    11. [11] Holder, R.L., Dearing, A., 2024. Human Dignity, Rights and Victim Participation in Criminal Justice. International Criminology. 4, 108–119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43576-024-00119-3
    12. [12] Mavronicola, N., 2024. The Case Against Human Rights Penality. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 44(3), 535–562. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqae013
    13. [13] Hyatt, J.M., Andersen, S.N., van Tiem, B., 2024. Perceptions of Incarcerated People: Prison Conditions, Public Health, and Justice in the United States. Journal of Public Health Policy. 45, 446–459. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-024-00496-z
    14. [14] Caruso, G.D., 2022. Free Will Skepticism and Criminal Justice: The Public Health-Quarantine Model. In: Nelkin, D.K., Pereboom, D. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Moral Responsibility. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. pp. 222–246
    15. [15] Pereboom, D., 2001. Living without Free Will. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498824
    16. [16] Menges, L., 2023. Responsibility, Free Will, and the Concept of Basic Desert. Philosophical Studies. 180(2), 615–636. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-022-01912-4
    17. [17] Ryberg, J., 2024. The Philosophy of Punishment. In The Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Punishment. Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA. pp. 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197750506.013.1
    18. [18] Cram, F., 2024. Fairness, Relationships and Perceptions of Police Legitimacy in the Context of Integrated Offender Management. Policing and Society. 34(4), 250–267. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2023.2267733
    19. [19] Lymperopoulou, K., 2024. Ethnic Inequalities in Sentencing: Evidence from the Crown Court in England and Wales. British Journal of Criminology. 64(5), 1189–1210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azae005
    20. [20] Topaz, C.M., Ning, S., Ciocanel, M.V., et al., 2023. Federal Criminal Sentencing: Race-Based Disparate Impact and Differential Treatment in Judicial Districts. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 10, 366. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01879-5
    21. [21] McKenna, M., 2024. Responsibility and Desert. Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/9780197679999.001.0001
    22. [22] Edwards, J., Yusari, T., 2023. The Internal Morality of Criminal Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 43(3), 475–496. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqad005
    23. [23] Ryberg, J., 2024. Criminal Justice and Artificial Intelligence: How Should We Assess the Performance of Sentencing Algorithms? Philosophy & Technology. 37, 9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-024-00694-3
    24. [24] Ryberg, J., 2025. Consequentialism, Threshold Retributivism, and Moral Intuitions. Criminal Law and Philosophy. 19, 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-025-09753-y
    25. [25] Basto-Pereira, M., Farrington, D.P., Maciel, L., 2024. Unravelling the Sequences of Risk Factors Underlying the Development of Criminal Behavior. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology. 10, 242–264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-024-00254-5
    26. [26] Coppola, F., 2026. From Liberty to Belonging: Rethinking the Pain of Punishment. Criminal Law and Philosophy. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-026-09799-6
    27. [27] Morse, S.J., 2024. Responsibility and Defenses. In: Ryberg, J. (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Punishment. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. pp. 339–357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197750506.013.21
    28. [28] Ruhland, E.L., 2024. Alternatives to Incarceration: Strategies for Reducing Violations and Revocations. Corrections. 9(5), 553–555. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2024.2404738
    29. [29] Poama, A., 2025. Poverty, Provocation, and Punishment. Criminal Law and Philosophy. 19, 303–323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-024-09747-2
    30. [30] Shachaf-Friedman, E., Elisha, E., 2024. Signifiers of Desistance from a Positive Criminology Perspective: The Case of Responsibility Taking in Restorative Proceedings. Criminology & Criminal Justice. 26(3), 995–1013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958241283949
    31. [31] Zawadzki, P., 2024. The Abolition of Punishment: Is a Non-Punitive Criminal Justice System Ethically Justified? Diametros. 21(79), 1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1987
    32. [32] Mukasheva, D., Tulkinbayev, N., Prilutskaya, M., et al., 2024. Behind Bars: Understanding Prisoner Perception of Penitentiary Rehabilitation in Kazakhstan. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice. 77, 100669. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2024.100669
    33. [33] Peters, A.L., 2025. Defining the Wrongness Constraint. Criminal Law and Philosophy. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-025-09770-x
    34. [34] Flanagan, B., de Almeida, G., 2024. Lawful, but Not Really: The Dual Character of the Concept of Law. Law and Philosophy. 43, 507–548. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-024-09501-8
    35. [35] Zisman, V., Rehren, P., 2025. The Problems of Empirically-Informed Arguments for and Against Retributivism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology. 16, 805–831. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-024-00753-w
    Back to top