which in turn is necessary for a penal sanction to be justly imposed. It is by means of reason nr. six that the state’s right to punish offenders is ultimately justified, according to Hagströmer. The difference between Binding and Hagströmer is that they construe the jural basis of penal law from different perspectives. Binding explains it from the sovereign’s point of view, while Hagströmer interprets the justification of penal law and the imposing of punishment, as being the corollary to the existence of the offender’s illicit will, as well as the importance to society of repairing the detrimental effects that such a will imposes upon society at large.360 Nevertheless, Binding and Hagströmer share a common point of departure, namely that the state’s right to punish offenders, and its correlate, the duty to suffer punishment, presupposes the existence of an illegal and duty-negating will, in addition to the state’s need to punish and correct certain behaviors.361 Hägerström pointed to certain facts that gave rise to doubts on whether Binding and Hagströmer’s ideas really corresponded to reality. However, provided that their respective accounts of what penal law was founded upon did in fact correspond to reality, then Hägerström had no scientific objections to their theories.362 To Professor Johan C.W.Thyrén the main purpose of penal legislation is general prevention. It is the execution of the punishment that deters other citizens, so the positive knowledge that criminal behavior is punished, deters crime.363 Hägerström is of another opinion; for according to him, it is when punishment is inflicted regularly that it functions as a deterrent. Therefore, in order to counteract the detrimental effects that criminal actions may have a ca l l f o r s c i e n t i f i c p u r i t y 489 360 Ibid.: p. 326. 361 Ibid. 362 Ibid. 363 Ibid.: pp. 328-329. 6 . 4 . 4 . 3 Thyrén: den mode rna straf frättens grundåskådningar
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=