Capital Punishment

[Mazoku]

Mazoku, we can run around in circles again and again getting into the semantics of wants vs needs, but I think you understand perfectly well what we mean and you're just maintaining this preposterous "need 900 ferraris" position so you don't have to defend your stance on the death penalty, which is what this is really about.

Damn, and i though you were the ones doing exactly that.

So let's pretend, just for the sake of the argument that there are people who physically need 900 ferraris or retribution against a criminal. Let's pretend that if we didn't execute heinous criminals, innocent people would actually die as a consequence.

I didnt quite make that conection but ill follow.

If such a place were real, would it not be incredibly immoral to give people false expectations or unfulfillable desires? Would it not be cruel to tell people about the existence of expensive sports cars, knowing that the majority of people could never afford even one, let alone multiple?

It depends on the situation, in my book that is a grey area.

My point is, even if what you said was true, and certain people actually were harmed by not having their desires fulfilled, the immoral thing would be to give them unrealistic/unfulfillable desires.

Desires=/= needs. Asuming you meant needs i might agree on that, however i have not a pice of altruism on my organism in that regard. If im advertising a product i know most people wont be able to buy then fuck them.

If i develop a medicine through hard work and puting everything i own in the line then i wont feel any regrets when advertising it among poor places were less than 1% of the population will have access to it.

Imagine if a child was raised in such a way that he "cannot continue to live" without killing and eating another person at least once a week. Should we stoop down to their level and give them people to kill to keep them happy?

I never said that society should aim to satisfy particular needs. However, it seems the helping him seems the way to go. If he cant embrace treatment then i will just let him die as his life isnt worth more than another person life.

We try to get him to drop his ridiculous expectations of receiving a fresh human victim every week, because we realise that we can't ethically provide that which the kid seems to "need".

Yes, needs are subjective it is posible to change them. They can change a lot through the course of your life and have certainly changed a lot through history.

In the case of capital punishment, the problem is that the victim(s) expect/want eye-for-an-eye retribution. We've already demonstrated that countries/states that have the death penalty tend to worse in crime statistics, so giving these revenge-driven victims their retribution comes at the cost of societal wellbeing.

Is death penalty a direct cause of the raise in crime statistics or they were already high before that? Because that is all what matters.

Why the fuck should we hurt our society to appease a bunch of primitive retribution-seekers?

I dont know why you call primitive a sistem that seeks retribution. AFAIK the curren sistem is based largely arround the idea of retribution (thats the reason why diferent crimes have diferent penalties based on severity).

IDK, but it seems fine to me.

[Ali Radicali]

Originally Posted by Mazoku

It depends on the situation, in my book that is a grey area.

How is it a grey area? According to you, unfulfilled "needs" cause harm, and "needs" are obviously something that can be created/controlled if you consider ferraris a need.

If you teach someone to need a ferrari when that person can't afford one, according to your reasoning, you're causing actual harm.
I'd certainly consider it a dickish move, but since I believe that people have a certain amount of responsibility for what goes on in their own heads, I can't find justification to fault the ferrari company for advertising, lol.

Desires=/= needs. Asuming you meant needs i might agree on that, however i have not a pice of altruism on my organism in that regard. If im advertising a product i know most people wont be able to buy then fuck them.

With your extremely loose definition of 'needs', I fail to see a difference between desires and needs. If you're going to make a point about making a distinction between desires and needs, then please give us your freaking definition of "needs" and "desires".

If i develop a medicine through hard work and puting everything i own in the line then i wont feel any regrets when advertising it among poor places were less than 1% of the population will have access to it.

If people are ill and your medicine is the cure, then they need the medicine. Selling it at a price that 99% couldn't afford would be immoral. Publicly advertising it would IMO be even more immoral.

On the other hand, putting up Ferrari billboards in a some third world shanty town wouldn't be immoral IMO, just pointless since none of the residents could afford a sports car.

See the difference?

I never said that society should aim to satisfy particular needs. However, it seems the helping him seems the way to go. If he cant embrace treatment then i will just let him die as his life isnt worth more than another person life.

So on the one hand you're saying the kid isn't worth more than another human being, so we shouldn't kill people to keep him happy. If we can't "fix" him through therapy, we should just ignore his desires/needs.
On the other hand, you're arguing that the "needs" of the (family of the)
victim outweigh the "needs" of the criminal: you're fine with executing criminals to appease the victims' need for justice/retribution.

Am I supposed to take this to mean that a criminal's life is worth less than that of a "normal" human? If so, by how much? Would it be OK to let the crazy child kill convicts to appease his "needs"? Why not try to "fix" the victims' "need" for revenge through therapy, rather than appeasing them with bloodshed?

Yes, needs are subjective it is posible to change them. They can change a lot through the course of your life and have certainly changed a lot through history.

If you agree that "needs" (desires really is the word you're looking for bro) are subjective and subject to change, why the hell would you try to get the legal system to pander to these desires?
Someone can change their mind about wanting revenge, but if the criminal is already dead, then that's a bit too late, mate.

Is death penalty a direct cause of the raise in crime statistics or they were already high before that? Because that is all what matters.

Given the strength of the correlation, it doesn't matter which is cause and which is effect: either way, the result is less crime and less convicts/executions. Win-win.

I dont know why you call primitive a sistem that seeks retribution. AFAIK the curren sistem is based largely arround the idea of retribution (thats the reason why diferent crimes have diferent penalties based on severity).

IDK, but it seems fine to me.

Our current justice system doesn't "seek retribution", it's specifically designed to prevent crime whilst (trying) not to cause false convictions. If it's unclear who the perpetrator is, the system convicts no-one rather than risking a false conviction.

The fact that we have proportional punishments is only partly because of retribution; there's a lot more to it than that. Not all crimes are equally offensive. Jaywalking or spitting is obviously not nearly as harmful as rape or armed robbery. If you executed everyone who ignored a red light in his life, you'd end up with a very empty country.
We make rules in the hopes that people obey them, but when people don't obey the rules, you NEED to look at the harm they cause in order to determine what measure of punishment is justifiable. Otherwise, your "justice" causes more harm than you're preventing.
Furthermore, the payoff of a crime is often related to the "wrongness" of it. For example, stealing pennies from fountains is not a nice thing to do, but it causes very little harm to society and it has a very low payoff for the thief, who probably won't be stealing more than a couple of dollars per fountain, at best.
On the other hand, embezzling money from a wealthy person/company/the government can be very lucrative, and is therefore highly illegal.

If we punished embezzlers the same way we punish the people who nick pennies from fountains, you'd have a whole lot of embezzlers.....

[Mazoku]

How is it a grey area? According to you, unfulfilled "needs" cause harm, and "needs" are obviously something that can be created/controlled if you consider ferraris a need.

To a certain degree needs can be created/controlled. It is a grey area in the way i dont fully consider it inmoral not to fullfill someone needs or even advertising something you know he needs but cant buy.

If you teach someone to need a ferrari when that person can't afford one, according to your reasoning, you're causing actual harm.

Yes i would be doing exactly that with indiference, so what?

I'd certainly consider it a dickish move, but since I believe that people have a certain amount of responsibility for what goes on in their own heads, I can't find justification to fault the ferrari company for advertising, lol.

Pretty much everything is advertised, and some people cant aford to get those goods they need in order to survive. You know, first world propaganda gets everywere.

With your extremely loose definition of 'needs', I fail to see a difference between desires and needs. If you're going to make a point about making a distinction between desires and needs, then please give us your freaking definition of "needs" and "desires".

I rather define basic needs, wich are those a person requires in order to live and if removed/absence they cause the organism to cease functioning in the short term.

Desires on the other hand are much broader than basic needs. I would even go as far as to say desires most of the time include basic needs. For example food is one of my basic needs and i also desire it. However, desires not always include basic needs. For example a rehabilitated drug addict might not consider drugs as a basic need, but he sure desires them.

If people are ill and your medicine is the cure, then they need the medicine. Selling it at a price that 99% couldn't afford would be immoral.Publicly advertising it would IMO be even more immoral.

Well i dont consider it inmoral. Letting someone die isnt the same as killing someone. If i truly thought the way you do, then i wouldnt be sitting in my computer right now but giving all i got to ensure no more lives are lost due to causes that i can prevent.

If you truly belive letting someone die = killing someone then you must fell awafull once you think there are plenty people you could save but chose not to because you rather stay at home or play some dota.

See the difference?

I do see the diference. People on that town dont need ferraris, but people on the other town need the medicine.
I dont consider either option inmoral.

On the other hand, you're arguing that the "needs" of the (family of the)
victim outweigh the "needs" of the criminal: you're fine with executing criminals to appease the victims' need for justice/retribution.

I never argued that. The hole "needs" debate had nothing to do with capital punishment.

I belive the criminal should be put to death (on severe cases) to minimize or even fix part of the damage caused by that criminal. The relationship between "needs" and "retribution+fixing damage caused" is so slim it isnt worth it to take it into acount.

If you agree that "needs" (desires really is the word you're looking for bro) are subjective and subject to change, why the hell would you try to get the legal system to pander to these desires?

Because i belive some crimes are just to hedious, and harm is still done to other people even if the criminal is still alive no matter if he is locked up for life. He is responsable for his acts, and he must fix the damage he caused (and is still doing).

Given the strength of the correlation, it doesn't matter which is cause and which is effect: either way, the result is less crime and less convicts/executions. Win-win.

It isnt a strong correlation. Its about the increase on crime rate that matters not the value itself.
You coud say A state has higher crime rate with death penalty than state B with no capital punishment, but does that mean capital punishment is responsible for that?
OFC NOT.

In order to "prove" (not realy prove but have some back up) that legalizing death penalty = higher crime rate you need to observe the evolution on crime rate through time comparing similar locations that do not experience major changes. OFC one single example would mean nothing, as the world is too big and has way to many diferent cultures to even think something that aplies to say US or Europe can apply to Sout America or Africa.

Not all crimes are equally offensive. Jaywalking or spitting is obviously not nearly as harmful as rape or armed robbery.

Wich is exactly what retribution searchs. A crime is less ofensive than B crime thus the person that commited B crimes should have a higher sentence than a person that comited A crime.

If you executed everyone who ignored a red light in his life, you'd end up with a very empty country.

I never even came in depth about ho should recive death penalty an ho shouldnt. Saing i would execute everyone that ignore a read light is flat out wrong. Its like saing you would put anyone ho cross a red light in prisson for life.

We make rules in the hopes that people obey them, but when people don't obey the rules, you NEED to look at the harm they cause in order to determine what measure of punishment is justifiable.

Wich is exactly what retribution means. If we were not seeking retribution we could go for a sistem based on flexible penalties (you do bad, you get punished... you do A FUCKTON OF BAD then you get A FUCKTON OF PUNISHMENT is the current sistem). But i belive that would cause riots pretty soon, as any criminal could go free at any time (or stay there forever).

[jamaca]

I believe the word your searching for is 'who' calling people 'ho' is generally deemed rude.

[Pwntlolz]

If the right to life is not subjective (you're pretty fucked up if you don't believe that, but whatever) then basic needs are not subjective and a Ferrari is not a basic need.

[funnyfarm]

latin american logic. i bet everybody who doesnt drive an off-road vehicle is gay because only big cars are manly.

[Inreet]

I'm for. Because there are some people that don't deserve to live. E.g. in Russia we have moratorium on death penalty. But we have such monsters that have killed over 10 people each. And ordinary people must feed them the rest of their life (on what money do jails depend?).
All these people are like a cancer. If you don't kill em in time they'll kill you. There is no need to let cancer live in our body so why should we let live these people?

[Mazoku]

If the right to life is not subjective (you're pretty fucked up if you don't believe that, but whatever) then basic needs are not subjective and a Ferrari is not a basic need.

However, the right to live is subjective. You think im fucked up for beliving this, but i belive you are the one ho is fucked up as you would never kill/have someone killed under any circunstance.

Originally Posted by funnyfarm

+1.

Get your +1 trolling atempts out of my forums.

[doomsheep]

Originally Posted by Mazoku

However, the right to live is subjective. You think im fucked up for beliving this, but i belive you are the one ho is fucked up as you would never kill/have someone killed under any circunstance.

i can't speak for other people but for me those circumstances are not when that person is imprisoned. that requires a special kind of fucked-up.

[Pwntlolz]

Originally Posted by Mazoku

However, the right to live is subjective. You think im fucked up for beliving this, but i belive you are the one ho is fucked up as you would never kill/have someone killed under any circunstance.

I don't think you know what the right to live means

[Snakebit3]

How do you prevent crime? Really... How do you keep someone from killing another out of anger, jealousy or whatever drives these assholes to do this. You cannot, and thinking differently is in my opinion foolish.
The cost-benifit ratio also hardly seems worth it in my opinion. Think of a country like America. Think of how much you could improve schooling of children for isntance if you were to pop one out of ten violent offenders (the killers etc.) rather than paying to feed them in prison. I sure as hell wish they would do that in my country.

I'm Danish and we don't have capital punishment (only for treachery against the state I think), life in jail in Denmark means 16 years. Longest jail sentence anyone served here was 33 years, and that was only because he killed police officers and the board who decides if a sentence should be extended past the 16 years consists of police officials, and they were "vendictive" if you can call keeping a person in a Danish prison vendictive.
But from a purely practical point of view I can see the appeal. For very violent offenders or mentally unstable (psychotic etc.) I would be all for it. Basically a bullet is cheaper than years upon years of "treatment".
Prisons in Denmark have WAITING LISTS, what the hell?? Just get rid of those who commited the worst crimes, permanently.

Who decides who lives and who doesn't? No idea.
Give me the damn list if need be and ill point em out, I will even pull the damned trigger if need be. (though currently I have no idea how to load a gun - really lol)

[funnyfarm]

Originally Posted by Snakebit3

How do you prevent crime? Really... How do you keep someone from killing another out of anger, jealousy or whatever drives these assholes to do this. You cannot, and thinking differently is in my opinion foolish. ....

.... Who decides who lives and who doesn't? No idea.
Give me the damn list if need be and ill point em out, I will even pull the damned trigger if need be. (though currently I have no idea how to load a gun - really lol)

Communist!!! <--- just joking.

Education initially costs money and politicians cant show any good numbers in their legislative session, and the follow up costs produced by not investing in education will not show up in the balance.

The problem with death penalty, as it is in the US at the moment , its much more expensive than life in prison.

[forthenoodz]

Originally Posted by funnyfarm

The problem with death penalty, as it is in the US at the moment , its much more expensive than life in prison.

source?

[funnyfarm]

Originally Posted by forthenoodz

source?

“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.”

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

[Mazoku]

I don't think you know what the right to live means

I dont think we want to go there. Starting a philosophical debate about what does "living" means isnt something im looking forward to.

source?

It has been discussed before. Aparently people that are facing death penalty require more resources than non death penalty cases. Basicaly you dont get the best trial you could get unless you face capital punishment.

[forthenoodz]

Originally Posted by funnyfarm

The problem with death penalty, as it is in the US at the moment , its much more expensive than life in prison.

alright, read some sources and you're right.

however, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...california-pr/


more than $4 billion has been spent on prison health care and another nearly $2.4 billion will be spent on building new facilities.


i've read a few other reports detailing the overcrowding in prison. billions have been spent on them.

[Ali Radicali]

Originally Posted by Mazoku

I dont think we want to go there. Starting a philosophical debate about what does "living" means isnt something im looking forward to.

That's not what we're talking about at all. The right to life doesn't mean you can't kill anyone, it just means you need a damn good reason to. And so far you haven't provided zippety doodah in support of the death penalty.

Rather than going a few more rounds of having you derail the thread to discussing things which are only tangentially ralated to institutionalised murder, let's get back to the actual arguments for capital punishment:

1. "Justice" for the victims
2. Deterrence
3. Cost effectiveness

2 and 3 can simply be waved away by pointing at the huge bulk of research that proves the opposite is true. I have yet to see a trustworthy research show any meaningful deterrent value of executing criminals. Furthermore, the large number of extra measures required for a death sentence make it way more expensive than lifelong incarceration.
Sure, i guess you could take the criminal as soon as the verdict is made and put a bullet in his brain to save money. However, we know that our justice system is far from perfect and we'd rather not run the risk of executing innocent people willy-nilly just to save a couple of dollars. If someone's life is at stake, you better be damn sure you've got the actual criminal, and making damn sure you do costs a damn lot more money.



Which leaves us back at argument 1: "justice" for the victims. Now I said before that I don't believe that killing is never justified, just that you need a good reason. Let me elaborate a little.

Let's say a deranged axe murderer is about to slaughter a class of schoolkids. Are the law enforcement agencies justified in using lethal force? Of course they are, after all innocent lives are at stake. Inaction would be demonstrably and obviously more harmful than killing the psycho. The shoolkids' right to life trumps that of the murderous psycho.
Now let's say law enforcement manages to apprehend the psycho alive, but only after he killed a couple of children. Should they kill him now? Of course not. At this point, there's no purpose to killing the guy. He's already in custody, so presumably he won't pose a threat to society anymore. Killing the guy would only raise the bodycount a little more. At this point, the question isn't the psycho's right to life vs that of his victims, it's the phsychopath's right to life vs. the (possible) desire for revenge of the survivors.



Human behavior is based on the concept of reciprocity: I behave nicely to you in the hopes that you return the favor. If we both play nice, we both profit.

If you treat me badly and I reciprocate in kind, it might teach you not to fuck with me, but it more probably causes an endless spiral of bad behavior toward each other
Eye-for-an-eye justice is older than the old testament, and although it's a simple enough concept, it doesn't lead to a very healthy society. If I burn down your house and you return the favour, neither of us is better off. In principle, the threat of me taking your eye should stop you from taking mine. However, if you're beyond reason, you might take my eye anyway. What good will it do me to take your in return? It won't return my depth vision..... I'd rather make sure you're put in prison where you can't take other people's eyes.


So instead of having people misbehaving to teach other miscreants a lesson, we've created a third party whose purpose is to provide that negative reciprocity that is needed to prevent crime: the justice system. Our laws state that a crime is a crime, no matter if the person you're hurting is a criminal himself. Instead of allowing people to burgle from burglars, rape rapists or murder murderers, we say that the correct thing for a citizen to do is to report a criminal and have the state deal with it.

So does the state have people on standby ready to rape rapists and extort extortionists? No! We realise that simply putting the criminal in the same predicament as his victim serves no purpose. It might make certain people feel better, but it's a senseless drain on resources. Instead, we have a list of punishments specially developed by lawyers and criminologists to deter criminals and/or prevent them from repeating their crime.

[Mazoku]

That's not what we're talking about at all. The right to life doesn't mean you can't kill anyone, it just means you need a damn good reason to.

Great, then anyone that belives on the right to have someone killed for "damn good reasons" aproves capital punishment. I can agree on that.

2 and 3 can simply be waved away by pointing at the huge bulk of research that proves the opposite is true. I have yet to see a trustworthy research show any meaningful deterrent value of executing criminals.

Agree, wich is the reason why i didnt base my arguments on those. I dont think the link between money and capital punishment is strong at all. It is a good thing to know though as it opens your eyes so you can realize that in US unless you are facing capital punishment you are not getting the best trial you could get (less fair if you want to see it that way). As you already pointed out this is due to "the large number of extra measures required" that are not present in regular trials.

"we'd rather not run the risk of executing innocent people willy-nilly just to save a couple of dollars" but we are okay sending them for life on prison sums it up.

Should they kill him now? Of course not. At this point, there's no purpose to killing the guy. He's already in custody, so presumably he won't pose a threat to society anymore.

I belive there is a purpouse. Im not here to set a bar about ho should get the death penalty and ho shouldnt, but im saing that there are some criminals that will still be extremely harmfull for society/victims even when in custody in complete isolation just by the fact that they are alive.

It just takes you to think about one single case in wich you would go for death penalty after the criminal is in custody for you to suport it.

Lets replace the axe murdered with something like Hitler (not the worst kind of person i can think of). Would you not go for death penalty after aprehending him?

If you dont then i respect your POV, seriously. However, i would get him in a trial and if found guilty execute him. If you do suport death penality in this case, then you suport death penalty, only diference between you and me would be you are setting your bar higher than i am.

Human behavior is based on the concept of reciprocity: I behave nicely to you in the hopes that you return the favor. If we both play nice, we both profit.

I belive this is a flawed view of human behaviour. Humans act based on what they consider best for their interest, period.

Some examples would be:

1) I give away 1000 dolars to charity because it makes me feel nice. If it made me feel like i just murdered half planet then i would never give to charity. In the end i do it for myself, for my own felings.
2) I punch someone that is bothering me in the face, because i dont like to be treated badly.
3) I express kindness towards people i like, because i know they like to be treated kindly and this will raise my odds of beeing treated equaly.

Some people like to be treated badly, and in order to recive kindness from them you need to treat them badly. So in the end is the humans own selfishness and abilty to predict the outcome of an action that drives them, not reciprocity. If i belived your premise traveling abroad would be a pain in the ass, as most cultures will coss out my "kind attitudes" as heavy threats thus reciprocity heavily failing.

So instead of having people misbehaving to teach other miscreants a lesson, we've created a third party whose purpose is to provide that negative reciprocity that is needed to prevent crime

Actualy i view justice sistem in this case as a set of rules that if you dont follow you suffer a punishment, nothing else. It tabulates crimes and punishments so that the ofender gets apropiate punishment and you get your retribution following a "fair trial".

So does the state have people on standby ready to rape rapists and extort extortionists? No!

No!

Rape---->20 years max
Extorsion---->12 years max

(numbers are off)

There is your retribution, instead of having 1 eye = 1 eye you get 1 eye = X years and the state regulating punishments.

[Ali Radicali]

Originally Posted by Mazoku

Great, then anyone that belives on the right to have someone killed for "damn good reasons" aproves capital punishment. I can agree on that.

Fail more.
I don't think "punishment" is a good reason to kill someone. Saving lives/preventing deaths might be, exacting revenge most certainly isn't.
I can see how killing people is soetimes inevitable/necessary for the greater good. I don't see how punishing people by killing them is a necessity or serves any purpose at all.

Agree, wich is the reason why i didnt base my arguments on those. I dont think the link between money and capital punishment is strong at all. It is a good thing to know though as it opens your eyes so you can realize that in US unless you are facing capital punishment you are not getting the best trial you could get (less fair if you want to see it that way). As you already pointed out this is due to "the large number of extra measures required" that are not present in regular trials.

"we'd rather not run the risk of executing innocent people willy-nilly just to save a couple of dollars" but we are okay sending them for life on prison sums it up.

If someone gets sent to prison for life on false charges, that sort of thing can still get fixed (and probably, hopefully will get fixed). The guy can call reporters and lawyers and tell his story, the real culprit might get caught or confess, who knows. It's the finality and irreversability of a death sentence that morally obligates the state to go to such extreme lengths to make sure they're doing the right thing, and yet they still make mistakes.

I belive there is a purpouse. Im not here to set a bar about ho should get the death penalty and ho shouldnt, but im saing that there are some criminals that will still be extremely harmfull for society/victims even when in custody in complete isolation just by the fact that they are alive.

You keep asserting that, but you haven't explained how or why, you haven't presented any data.
I can't imagine how a criminal's continued existence behind bars could cause any real harm to society. If that's what you want to argue, kindly show me examples, not more assertions.

It just takes you to think about one single case in wich you would go for death penalty after the criminal is in custody for you to suport it.

And I can't imagine any single person who I'd rather kill than see rot in prison.
Honestly, I don't get why people think death is such a great punishment. As far as we know, once you're dead, you can't experience anything. At least when you're wasting you life behind bars, you have a chance to maybe regret your misdeeds, or at the very least resent the predicament that those actions put you in.

If you use some long, gory execution method like scaphism, at least the victim suffers from the dying process, thus some form of punishment is actually experienced by the victim, but with modern execution methods, it's quick and painless, thus entirely pointless. I'm not saying I'd support cruel torturous execution methods either, but at least with those I can see where the victim would get his sense of revenge.
With modern execution methods, i find it hard to imagine anyone finding peace of miind in the knowledge that someone was put into a painless state of brain death, rather than locked up for the remainder of his life.

Lets replace the axe murdered with something like Hitler (not the worst kind of person i can think of). Would you not go for death penalty after aprehending him?
If you dont then i respect your POV, seriously. However, i would get him in a trial and if found guilty execute him. If you do suport death penality in this case, then you suport death penalty, only diference between you and me would be you are setting your bar higher than i am.

From a practical standpoint, you'd probably have no choice with mr Hitler. It'd be pretty impossible to detain him without half the world trying to break in to either kill or rescue him. However, if it was possible, I'd say give him life imprisonment in solitary confinement, but with regular acces to news about how much better the world is doing without him. Hell, extend his life as long as possible. It would have been a lot better punishment than a cyanide pill....

I belive this is a flawed view of human behaviour. Humans act based on what they consider best for their interest, period.

Some examples would be:

1) I give away 1000 dolars to charity because it makes me feel nice. If it made me feel like i just murdered half planet then i would never give to charity. In the end i do it for myself, for my own felings.
2) I punch someone that is bothering me in the face, because i dont like to be treated badly.
3) I express kindness towards people i like, because i know they like to be treated kindly and this will raise my odds of beeing treated equaly.

Some people like to be treated badly, and in order to recive kindness from them you need to treat them badly. So in the end is the humans own selfishness and abilty to predict the outcome of an action that drives them, not reciprocity. If i belived your premise traveling abroad would be a pain in the ass, as most cultures will coss out my "kind attitudes" as heavy threats thus reciprocity heavily failing.

The fact that humans act out of self interest doesn't refute reciprocity in the slightest. In fact, reciprocity is almost exclusively driven by self interest. How do you think childrearing works?

If I behave badly and you punish me by acting mean to me, it suddenly becomes my best interest to stop misbehaving. If I act nicely to you in the hopes of being treated nicely in return, it's because I like being treated nicely by others.
Masochists throw a wrench into the concept by liking what most people would consider "punishment", but the principle still stands, you just apply it differently to people with such extreme tastes.

Actualy i view justice sistem in this case as a set of rules that if you dont follow you suffer a punishment, nothing else. It tabulates crimes and punishments so that the ofender gets apropiate punishment and you get your retribution following a "fair trial".

And I view it as a system intended to prevent crime and suffering as much as possible, which seems like a much more worthy goal.

If all you want is a set of rules and corresponding punishments, then the whole thing really is arbitrary. You might as well reintroduce "feeding to the lions" and lashings as punishments. After all, as long as the punishments are proportional to the crime, the ctual punishment itself doesn't matter right?

No!

Rape---->20 years max
Extorsion---->12 years max
(numbers are off)

There is your retribution, instead of having 1 eye = 1 eye you get 1 eye = X years and the state regulating punishments.

When the state locks up an extortionist, they're not "exacting their revenge", they're making sure other people aren't tempted to start extorting and they're keeping the extortionist himself off the streets so he can't commit new crimes.

It's a matter of motivation. Keeping order means enforcing the rules, whatever they may be. The government locks up criminals because they know that not doing so will result in more crime and harm for society. The government does not (or should not, can't speak for all countries here) lock up people because they have some petty grudge or grievance against them.

[Grubi]

Lets say my wife was murdered and brutaly raped. I belive capital punishment would be the only way i could move ahead

Anyone who needs a person who can't hurt him anymore dead in order to move on with their life is a sad person.