Current paper aims to identify the logical foundations of theories of the philosophy of punishment, examining the relationship between four types of logic (formal, fuzzy, material, and dialectical) and the main theories of punishment (traditional and modern retributivism, utilitarian punishment, and hybrid theories). A review of the literature reveals that no independent study has yet been conducted with such a typological framework, and most existing research is either limited to fuzzy logic or contains scattered references to the structure of arguments. The research is of a fundamental-theoretical type and has been conducted using a descriptive-analytical method. The findings indicate that traditional (Kantian) retributivism aligns with formal logic and the first figure of categorical syllogism; modern retributivism, while retaining a formal framework, has prepared the epistemological ground for the introduction of fuzzy logic; utilitarian punishment is based on material logic (prioritizing content and consequences); and hybrid theories represent a spectrum ranging from eclectic (mere juxtaposition) to pseudo-dialectical (conditional or quantitative resolution of contradiction) and dialectic-like (synthesis at two different levels). The conclusion is that the choice of any theory of punishment implicitly entails the acceptance of a specific type of logic with its own normative presuppositions.