>Incarceration is arguably more punitive - more *lastingly* punitive, in any
>case, since the incarcerated person's suffering is not brought to an abrupt
>end. I suppose it also depends on the prison regime.
>
>The killing of a miscreant ends as well as asserts the power of the judge and
>executioner: he is dispatched to god, if you like, beyond human judgement
>which acknowledges itself powerless to comprehend or to redeem. The attempted
>reform of a miscreant implies that there is potentially no end to the power
>of society - of civilisation, in effect.

It never occurred to me that Hitler or Stalin or Saddam could be reformed,
frankly. I was more concerned with limiting the danger they posed if free.
As to the severity of punishment, I was thinking primarily of the impact of
capital punishment on a society  that prectices it.

Your idea of murder by the victim's survivors has two problems: 1. what if
the killer has dispatched the whole village, and 2. the cycle of blood
debt. Ancient Israel came up with a 50 year limit on blood feuds.
Otherwise, a society founded on bedouin law wouyld not have been able to
survive in settled communities.


> > Of course we have lots of emotions that are not useful to act out.
>
>Yes, but "anger is an energy": it has its uses, there is more than one
>possible "acting out".

Sorry for the bit of jargon. See my subsequent, which probably arrived as
you were sending this one off.

But let's try a thought experiment. Lust is an equally powerful and pure
emotion, and a lot more fun for most of us.  I think most of us know it's
both useful and good in itself, but only within very circumscribed
limits.  At the simplest level, the problem, aside from the need of
pedestrians for unencumbered streets and motorists for focused drivers, is
the rights of the objects of lust. Pure, simple emotions tend not to take
the pure, simple emotions of others into account.

Mark