<p>Kolber’s magnificent book argues that “pure consequentialism is superior to standard retributivism when applied to incarceration in the here and now.” I admire his focus on actual contexts and particular cases of incarceration, and I accept his main criticisms of standard retributivism. However, I reply that pure consequentialism faces several profound problems similar to those he presses against standard retributivism. In particular, I argue that pure consequentialism is not as simple, practical, or fruitful as Kolber claims, and that it has trouble dealing with uncertainty and aligning with intuition and conventional morality. In the end, Kolber fails to show that pure consequentialism is any good in the here and now or superior to standard retributivism in any important sense.</p>