Criminal theorists struggle to account for the “totality principle”—the idea that no matter how many small crimes you commit, your punishment should not exceed that for a more serious offense. Andrew Ashworth, for instance, argues that “overall proportionality” should be preserved but that this is a “pragmatic” solution. This paper argues that a retributivist can accept overall proportionality without abandoning her retributivism. I offer two lines of defense. The first is to show that the unit that we are aggregating may be more complex than first appears. The second relies on insights from the headaches versus lives literature, and how we should rescue one person dying before preventing one million people from headaches. The harms that we impose on others, and the harms that defendants suffer because of punishment, do not exist on one single scale. Hence, the true problem, I maintain, is not how culpability functions, but how our particular mode of punishment does. When we only have one primary mechanism to punish (particularly once we start aggregating)—put people in prison—then aggregating offenses appears as though it must quickly lead to numerous acts of littering being punished more than arson. With a more nuanced punitive response, we can punish minor offenses every time without surpassing the kinds of punishment we impose on more significant offenses.

犯罪理论家努力解释“全面原则”，即无论您犯多少小罪行，您的刑罚都不应超过更严重罪行的刑罚。例如，安德鲁·阿什沃思（Andrew Ashworth）认为应保留“总体比例”，但这是“务实”的解决方案。本文认为，分配主义者可以接受整体比例，而不会放弃她的分配主义。我提供两道防线。首先是要表明我们正在汇总的单位可能比第一次出现时要复杂。第二种方法依赖于头痛与生活文献之间的见解，以及如何在防止一百万人头痛之前如何挽救一个垂死的人。我们强加给他人的伤害，以及被告因惩罚而遭受的伤害，没有一个单一的规模。因此，我认为，真正的问题不是罪魁祸首如何发挥作用，而是我们特殊的惩罚方式如何发挥作用。当我们只有一种主要的惩罚机制（特别是一旦我们开始集结）（将其投入监狱）时，集结的犯罪似乎就象必须迅速导致许多乱抛垃圾的行为多于纵火。通过更细微的惩罚性反应，我们可以每次都对轻罪进行惩罚，而不会超出我们对重罪做出的那种惩罚。当我们只有一种主要的惩罚机制（特别是一旦我们开始集结）（将其投入监狱）时，集结的犯罪似乎就象必须迅速导致许多乱抛垃圾的行为多于纵火。通过更细微的惩罚性反应，我们可以每次都对轻罪进行惩罚，而不会超出我们对重罪做出的那种惩罚。当我们只有一种主要的惩罚机制（特别是一旦我们开始集结）（将其投入监狱）时，集结的犯罪似乎就象必须迅速导致许多乱抛垃圾的行为多于纵火。通过更细微的惩罚性反应，我们可以每次都对轻罪进行惩罚，而不会超出我们对重罪做出的那种惩罚。