This edited volume examines the thesis that the legitimacy of state punishment depends on the existence of a prior political relationship of affiliation between the state and the offender. In contemporary philosophy of criminal law, this idea is discussed in both German-speaking and Anglo-American debates under the concept of "criminal law for citizens." The volume raises the question of whether such a relationship of political membership is indeed a necessary condition for legitimate punishment, and how this assumption can be justified in pluralistic and fragmented societies. Methodologically, the volume combines philosophical analysis of criminal law with a jurisprudential reconstruction of key positions in the debate. It focuses on the influential models of Antony Duff and Michael Pawlik, who develop different conceptions of a criminal law for citizens. Contributions by Bill Wringe as well as Ivó Coca-Vila and Cristián Irarrázaval critically examine the extent to which these approaches are capable of justifying criminal law practice in modern political communities. Tatjana Hörnle, in particular, investigates the challenges posed by fragmented societies and limited civic bonds, while Valerij Zisman explores the role of restorative justice within a liberal system of criminal law in a fragmented society. The volume situates the discussion in the context of twenty-first-century Western liberal democracies and engages with central debates in criminal law and political philosophy. Its scholarly contribution lies in systematically connecting the previously separate German-speaking and Anglo-American discourses and in critically assessing the viability of the concept of criminal law for citizens for the criminal law of fragmented societies.