(snip)

> Also, to elaborate on the "definitely" and "fundamentally" of above, I don't believe that whatever it is that is wrong with them can be changed under today's circumstances. They cannot be saved. [Disclaimer, disclaimer, disclaimer ...] That is what I believe, and if there are enough people out there who believe oppositely, the so be it: Let's build a legal system based on it. But be prepared to be proved wrong.

Here, I think, is the rub.

We can debate philosophy until all our hair and teeth and brains fall out and not get anywhere, unless we try something in the real world and see if it works, right?

But how do you define "works"?

The fact that countries with less retributive justice systems than the US's also tend to have lower violent crime rates than the US has been brought up, and no one has tried to argue with it on statistical grounds. Instead, Dave, I believe, called that a strawman. He (not you) seemed to imply that the *point* of a justice system is not to change people or to create a stable society, but to chase after an abtract concept of, well, "justice"; you do bad things, you get bad things done to you, *not* because it's necessary for society to function but simply because that's the Way Things Are.

I understand this POV and I won't argue with it. (I, too, believe in justice, but my religious beliefs claim that justice has already been enforced on a surrogate, Jesus, and therefore has no further power over people on Earth, but I don't expect everyone here to share those views.) However, let me point out that the belief in an abstract thing called Justice is a religious belief of sorts, and is not based in what you call a "practical" point of view. ("Practical" meaning your first priority is a well-functioning society that most people can be happy living in.)

I'd argue that the desire for justice (or, let's be honest, vengeance; it boils down to the same principle), though well-founded and often accompanied by strong emotions that no one has the right to contradict (yes, if that were my kid I'd want these two's blood too), in the end doesn't make sense or accomplish anything.

Yeah, the murderer dies; so? What eternal significance does it have? He was going to die in the end anyway; in the meantime you've eliminated all the other potential his life had. And has his death really evened anything out? Can you duplicate the emotional and social ramifications of the original murder with that person's execution? Should we say, then, that the more painful a murder was, the more painful the method of execution should be? (It wasn't that long ago that people in the US were calling for Tim McVeigh's death by torture.) And what about multiple deaths? Does one death pay for one hundred sixty-eight deaths in any meaningful sense? Does it really make anybody feel better or bring "closure"? (I rather dislike that word, since nobody seems to really be able to define it and yet everyone seems so willing to do whatever it takes to achieve it.) What happens to rapists, then? How can they meaningfully pay for the emotional and psychological pain they cause? What happens to slanderers and libelers? How can you extract justice for a lost reputation? Etc., etc., etc... It's a whole big can of worms that goes away once you switch your POV from punishment to rehabilitation, and that's what many countries have chosen to do, as is their right as sovereign states.

I'd ask, first of all, whether the *concept* of justice enforced by earthly authorities makes sense at all. (To me it doesn't; the only real justice can be eternal justice after death. That's one of the factors that pushed me toward a Christian worldview. All earthly justice can only be at best a poor reflection.) If it makes sense to you, then, well, all we can do is agree to disagree. And, assuming that isn't the only value you hold, and assuming that you, too, value a stable society with happy, prosperous inhabitants, you'd have to balance those two values and see how they might conflict and see how those conflicts might be resolved.

For me, the first issue has already been resolved by God, who is the only person who *can* really resolve it. The second issue is the one I believe we're called to deal with on Earth, and, from what I've seen, at least, the principle of enforcing absolute justice on Earth and the principle of showing love and mercy to all criminals and trying to make the world better for everyone don't quite jibe with each other. The retributive system the US has set up to satisfy issue one doesn't work very well at all for satisfying issue two, and the systems other countries have created that seem to spurn issue one seem to do a better job of dealing with issue two. (I remember an article on the prisons they have in the Netherlands, which occupy a far different function from prisons in the US and seem to do much better at keeping first offenders first offenders and getting them back to their lives and their jobs without having to live at taxpayer expense. Of course they hadn't "paid for their crimes" in the way Americans would see that phrase, and yet the country seems to function better...)

If someone could give me definitive evidence that a country where everybody takes Responsibility For Their Actions (in the going-to-prison-and-suffering or taking-a-ride-in-ol'-Sparky sense; that is, is made to be *punished* for their actions) actually works better and produces healthier, happier people than another country, then I'd be more inclined to change my basic postulates. Till then, when empirical evidence aligns with your presuppositions, you don't go changing them around for nothing.

Ar"but of course no society is ideal; still, some are better in certain areas than others"thur