The publication presents a new theory of criminal punishment as a result of a scientific understanding of this important, complex and multifaceted socio-legal phenomenon. The new concept is called integrative, as this penological model belongs to the class of synthetic (mixed, connective, combined, hybrid) theories of criminal punishment.: It unites and reconciles the absolute and relative doctrines of punishment and represents one of the options for a compromise combination of retributionist and consequentialist approaches to criminal punishment. It highlights the general basis of punishment and characterizes the so-called law of punishment (jus puniendi, diritto di punire), which is often highlighted in penological science. It is noted that in the current period of time in public life there are no conditions indicating the possibility of abandoning the institution of criminal punishment in the foreseeable future. It is emphasized that the essence of criminal punishment is retribution, however, due to the large number of interpretations of this concept, it is indicated that it should be understood as the proportionality of criminal punishment to the crime. It is shown that the idea of retribution is firmly rooted by evolution in the ethical, psychological and mental strata of human civilization and that the value of the idea of justice (conformity) punishment lies in the fact that it protects the punitive sphere from blurring boundaries and limits, arbitrariness, abuse and various kinds of excesses in depriving and restricting the rights of the punished. It is concluded that, within the framework of the higher and lower limits of punishment established by the principle of retribution, the utilitarian (pragmatic) goals of general and private prevention, without prejudice to this principle, can and should not only be pursued, thereby revealing the full potential of the institution of criminal punishment. It is argued that, as socio-cultural development and civilizational progress progress, the state adjusts the external forms and content of criminal punishment (changes its types, size, intensity, conditions of execution, etc.) to changes in value standards in determining the conformity of criminal punishment with crime, and therefore its methods gradually soften with social and moral progress. A point of view has been expressed regarding the long-debated and controversial complex issue of determining the measure of both the lowest and highest limits of criminal punishment. It is summarized that, adhering to and observing the principle of proportionality (conformity), it is necessary to strive to achieve the full variety of utilitarian goals of criminal punishment, including the tasks of neutralizing (neutralizing the threat), moral (internal, ethical) correction and the so-called legal (external) correction of the criminal, the results of which form a well-known triad in world penology: non- potest – non vult – non audeat (can't – won't – dare).