>Why are you surprised? Why is punishment administered by the state
>acceptable but punishment administered by an individual, not?
"Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord," Which means that in our culture, it is not up to the individual who is wronged to determine and/or mete out appropriate punishment. It is up to society as a whole. In our day, society is represented by the state.
This has merit, in the sense that it represents a form of social solidarity. It is not only the victim who is wronged, but society as a whole and society is taking responsibility. At the same time society is capable of being more consistent and of course objective. And remorseless.
Whereas, to condone vengeance by the victim is quite primitive. This is the law of the jungle, individualism gone mad. The ultimate, the very definition of anti-social. Just how basic this is I can barely think of words for.
>If you're arguing that mercy is the highest form of justice, that's
>one thing; but, if you're arguing that punishment is never right
>when the state is not involved, then I'm the one that's puzzled.
If not the state, then whatever the organs of society are in the given situation. It may be the guardians of society's religion, or the tribal elders, or even the IRA if you live in the Bogside, but its always been society which reserves the right to oversee retribution. That's what "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord," means.
Society just doesn't work if everyone is running around operating their own personal justice system. Its fundamental.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas