The paper argues that the repentance of an offender can make his punishment inappropriate and that courts must consider repentance as a sufficient reason not to inflict punishment at all or to reduce it. The discussion begins with an examination of the communicative theory of punishment which acknowledges that punishment must aim at the repentance of offenders. However, this theory, as brilliantly presented in the works of Antony Duff, does not admit generally that repentance is a sufficient reason to remit punishment. Another representative of the communicative theory, John Tasioulas, argues that repentance must be considered as a ground for mercy. Both writers, however, perceive repentance outside the normative framework of criminal justice process. The author argues that repentance can and must be an essential element in inflicting or remitting punishment. The reasons to support such a conclusion are drawn from a variety of writings ranging from traditional criminology to the theological writings of Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin.