blatham wrote:But second, you set aside one class of crime - vicious murder - and suggest that it somehow ought to be thought of differently, and punished differently. But why? Other than your disgust at the inhumanity of it? What if someone else felt their disgust at a blinding justified a penalty of blinding the perpetrator?
OK, than we'll just give the death penalty to everyone who commits a crime. Even for speeding tickets. You absolutely have to have different levels of punishment for different severities of crime. Maybe they do things differently up there in Canada but down here we believe that the punishment must fit the crime. One blanket form of justice is inefficient. The criminal justice system is very complex and we need different levels of punishment.
As I have already stated, it doesn't matter if the death penalty affects the crime rate. That's not why we have it. We have it so that justice can can bring some closure to the victims families. As long as someone sits in jail there's always a chance they can get out through some loophole. There would be no closure to the crime. It's not revenge. If it were revenge we would have the victims families throwing the switch themselves.
Now as far as someone being punished financially, that's yet another appropriate punishment for the level of crime committed. If someone takes your eye you deserve compensation. Make them pay for that eye out of their bank account. Very fair!
We have one of the best criminal justice systems in the world because it does take into consideration the various levels of crime and has various corresponding levels of punishment. It isn't always perfect but there's no justice system in the world that is perfect.