I’m not arguing from both sides. I’m arguing for completeness.
Biblical justice puts the victim and the accused on the same level playing field. In principle, whatever the victim has lost, the guilty loses the same way, with retribution thrown in to give some incentive to not commit the acts in the first place.
It is supposed to be balanced, where the victim receives justice and the guilty party is able to find his way back into society, unless the crime the guilty party commits cannot be made up in any way. In which way, death is the only suitable punishment.
When I referred to how Muslims handle crime, it was a sarcastic response to those who think if the punishment is hard, vicious, and often enough, we would create a safe society.
“In principle, whatever the victim has lost, the guilty loses the same way, with retribution thrown in to give some incentive to not commit the acts in the first place.”
That’s really the issue as i see it.
Who gets to decide and deal out the retribution for rape or giving heroin to children or even for making an innocent person afraid to leave their own home?
Who decides what the victim has lost and what that loss is worth to the victim and to society in general? What kind of retribution is due someone sick enough to rape or take an innocent life? What kind of society allows those sickening crimes without dealing with them in harshest way possible?