ArnoldRimmer said:
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". |
Short of penal law abolitionism I don't think there's any legal system who follows relative punishment as you mentioned. Take civil law for instance - if you commit a civil offense, it will not be enough that the damage is properly restored and the whole thing brought back to its original state - you'll get a fine too. The legal system is avenged because otherwise there would be no reason for people to refrain from commiting illegal acts if the only consequence was the chance of failing. Basically penal law will follow the same line of reasoning except it will attack your freedom instead of your wallet.
Also, besides the fact there's often no way to return to the original state after a criminal offense, the penal law in theory should embrace the punishment of an outrage to the very social contract and that makes it even more serious. You could say there's a lot of things people take for granted and what threatens them is often held in check the subconscious effect of a punishing legal system.
