I see it as disincentivization, I guess not everyone's for measures like that.

I don't see how that'd do that though, if people feel like their life is being threatened I don't think they're going to have a fine at the forefront of their mind. 

See the edit.

Also; keeping it illegal allows judges to give more appropriate sentences *if* it ends up being a more ambiguous case.

Well, most cases of homicide are already illegal though, unless it's justified self defense.

The important point for me is - self defence against theft *isn't* good enough, and a bad idea, overall, while self defence against a clear murder attempt would be more so. This walks the fence a bit.

You decided to ignore the moral of the story though, and that is that even though people make mistakes and always will, with the right education and help along the way, a lot of them will be able turn themselves around into valuable members of society.

That's not going to happen if you chop their hands off for petty theft, be it at age five or age sixteen. Most societies have realized that a working taxpayer is more valuable than a cripple, a man wasting away in prison or a dead man. That is why contry in particular has a prison system that is targeted towards rehabilitation and protection rather than punishment.

People who are and will remain a danger to society, will remain incarcerated, but everyone else should be helped to reintegrate and become reformed.

The important point for me is - self defence against theft *isn't* good enough, and a bad idea, overall, while self defence against a clear murder attempt would be more so. This walks the fence a bit.

Why not? Obviously something that is MINE is more valuable to me than some stranger that is trying to take it from me. IMO it should be legal to eliminate anyone that attempts to rob from you, its self defense of your possessions and integrity. You're also cleaning up the streets of a criminal in the process. When you commit a crime against another you waive right to humane treatment.

That's a big part of what the legal system is about, to me... help people make decisions that aren't their first instincts, but ultimately lead to better results, in average.

It's also part of what you want to ingrain in the collective conscience. A certain sense of order. Think, for example, Japan - where people refuse to cross a red light, even if there isn't a car in sight - because there is a very strong sense of order. And, I think, indirectly, that also contributes to lower overall criminality, elsewhere. In the same way, I think it would be good to *officially*, as much as possible, present using violence to solve any of your problems, in any circumstance, as a bad thing. And then, let happen what happens if people *do* fall victim to their natural instincts in more extreme cases, with a lenient judge.