The debate between punishment and rehabilitation as the primary goal of the criminal justice system represents a fundamental tension in societal values. This study investigates which philosophy—retributive punishment or rehabilitative correction—the public primarily endorses and explores the factors that shape these preferences. A mixed-methods approach was employed, comprising a quantitative public opinion survey (N=500) and qualitative, semi-structured interviews (N=20) with a diverse sample of citizens. Quantitative findings revealed a complex and seemingly contradictory value set: a strong abstract belief in rehabilitation (72% agreed it should be the primary goal) coexisted with strong support for punitive measures like harsher sentences (65%) for violent offenses. Qualitative analysis resolved this paradox, identifying a key moderating variable: the perceived nature of the offense and the offender. Interviewees consistently expressed a preference for rehabilitative approaches for non-violent, first-time, and mentally ill offenders, while demanding punitive responses for violent, sexual, and repeat offenders. The study concludes that society does not value punishment or rehabilitation in absolute terms, but rather values a context-dependent system that prioritizes rehabilitation where possible and punishment where deemed necessary for public safety and moral desert. This suggests that "what works" is less important to the public than "what is deserved" in a given context.