| haxxiy said: OT - I think the death penalty is useful for the most heinous crimes. It may not stop them, but a violation to the legal system has to be avenged, and the society demands a proper answer for atrocities. |
Why does it have to? I'm anything but a legal expert, but I know that students in my country learn different theories about the meaning of punishment. There are two basic theories over here, one being called "absolute Straftheorie" (absolute punishment theory?) and "relative Straftheorie" (relative punishment theory?).
I think what you describe is called absolute punishment theory and has a lot to do with the biblical "an eye for eye" concept. It doesn't focus on wether the punishment actually has a positive effect, the idea is rather that "something was done that hurt the legal balance, and now something has to be done to restore that balance".
Relative punishment theory on the other hand focuses on the actual effects. It focuses on the future; revenge should not be a motive for the punishment; the punishment should only focus on prevention. This concept seems to be very close to what someone above told about a Babylon 5 episode.
In legal practice over here, it's a mix of both concepts, but I personally definitely prefer the relative theory.
