Introduction The maintenance of law and order in a society is undoubtedly the basis of a peaceful coexistence and harmonious correlation between people in the society. However, such societal balance may be compromised by certain acts of crimes committed by individuals within the society in question (Briggs & Friedman, 2009). The concerned authorities have therefore established various judicial mechanisms in an attempt to restore the aforementioned balance within their area of jurisdiction. For instance, individuals engaging in any criminal act are subjected to fair trial and thereafter punished if found guilty of the offence or otherwise acquitted if innocent. The punishment directed towards offenders is either meant to justify the fact that criminals deserve such sentence or to minimize or even prevent such acts in the future (Briggs & Friedman, 2009). These reasons justify the theory of punishment which is discussed at length in this paper. It is always in the interest of a society to uphold order and balance since these are the prerequisites of happiness and peaceful coexistence among the people in the society. To achieve this, various legal institutions ranging from small domestic courts to the superior international courts have been established in an attempt to dispense justice to all thereby restoring balance in the society. The accused are subjected to trial after which conviction or acquittal is granted depending on the outcome of the legal proceedings (Briggs & Friedman, 2009). Briggs & Friedman (2009) poses that if the offender is found guilty of a crime; she/he is punished by the court to serve a specified period of time in the confinement. Such punishment justifies the attempt by the authority to maintain order and happiness within its jurisdiction. However, crime and punishment jeopardizes the happiness hence should be reduced to the minimum level possible (Schlegel, 1991). Reasons for punishment vary according to the theory of punishment. To begin with, punishment may be passed by the jury with an aim of reducing or preventing the occurrence of similar crimes in the future. In such a situation, the offender is individually deterred from committing such a crime within the time s/he is confined. On the other hand, the offender can also be generally deterred by being confined in prison to convey a stern message to other potential criminals against committing such an offense (Bagaric, 2001). For instance, cases on war crimes as well as crimes against humanity have been initiated by the ICC as well as other international legal organs to deter offenders especially leaders against such crimes. The criminal case against the late Saddam Hussein, former president of Iraq, was an example of both specific and general deterrence (Bagaric, 2001). To begin with, the conviction of Saddam not only stopped him from committing any further atrocity or crimes against humanity but was also used by the court to warn other dictators against such crimes. This is what is referred to as the utilitarian reason in the punishment theory (Bagaric, 2001). Utilitarian theory Utilitarian theory can also encompass rehabilitation where the convict is confined within a correctional facility and offered training on behavior change in an