This chapter addresses two topics that figure prominently in Professor Alexander’s corpus. It responds in detail to Alexander’s argument that threshold deontology suffers from a “moral ballast” problem. Concluding that the problem is not fatal to threshold deontology, it goes on to explore how threshold deontology might elucidate another problem of interest to Alexander – how retributivists might defend punishment in light of the inevitability that the innocent will be punished by any real-world criminal law. While concluding that threshold deontology could explain the coexistence of these institutions and a robust norm against punishing the innocent, the chapter suggests that other defenses might be preferable.