The purpose of normative theories of punishment, such as retributivism and utilitarianism is reflected in the structuring of the practice of punishment by certain goals and values, guiding the decision makers of criminal policy and the issue of the legitimacy of state institutions. Starting from the basic assumptions and purposes of the normative theory of punishment and philosophical definition of the sentence, the paper examines the role that pragmatic philosophy has in the criminal justice system. In doing so, the main argument is that the perpetrators of the murder should be punished because they deserve it, since the commission of misdeeds violated the accepted social norms and committed damage to the victim and society. For the same reason the society has provided the right to punish and satisfy justice. Using such punishment, society takes care of the other members of society, and doing so does not take account only of the previously committed criminal offense and offender, rather than a deterrent potential murderers and takes care of the common good of society. This means that the work reviewing the existing philosophical definitions of terms punishment, and the implications that they have on the criminal justice system, and hence the penal practice. Based on empirical data seeks to properly defend retributivism and utilitarian theory of deterrence in cases of serious crimes, namely murder. The argument comes down to display examples of two countries whose legislation and penal practice are diametrically different. After examining, the diversity provides the opportunity to discuss, to select and provide synthesis of existing philosophical theories of punishment, as well as their role in the criminal justice system and penal practice.