According to psychoanalytic theory, punitiveness is based on a projection of one's own immoral desires and the moral conflict they cause (scapegoat hypothesis). This hypothesis implies that transgressors impose harsher punishment onto comparable wrongdoers. This effect should be amplified by strength of decision conflict. An alternative hypothesis based on blameavoidance motivation is derived. Participants (N = 291) were asked to indicate whether they would commit an unlawful act in a moral temptation situation and how conflicted they felt in making their decision. Later, they had to judge convicts in criminal cases that were similar to the previous temptation situations. Authoritarianism was assessed as covariate. In contrast to the scapegoat but consistent with the blame-avoidance interpretation, transgressors were more lenient than nontransgressors. Authoritarianism had main effects on punitiveness. Decision conflict was neither directly nor indirectly related to punitiveness. The findings challenge the validity of the scapegoat hypothesis.