The measure as written
The rule of IS RETRIBUTION ESSENTIAL? weighs a guilt first by the disturbance it causes. Under the provocation amount, it gives the direction of the retribution and its limit:
(Usually, by increasing the retribution level, the level of eruption of future cases diminishes.) (This must be tuned to a manageable value such that there is no illegitimate retribution, as this can spread chaos in the society.)
For a damage that cannot be undone, it gives two ways:
(Is the damage reversible or not, and if reversible, then how many resources are to be diverted to fix it?) If the damage is irreversible (i.e. loss of life or of any body part), then there should be a strategy of stone for stone or the replacement method.
Under "Stone for Stone (SFS)", it states the aim:
It's true that no matter how much retribution is in place, the damage is irreversible, and truly, in such cases, we are not concerned with replacing the material damage, as we cannot do that in reality. The only solution is to prevent further cases of such magnitude.
and why a lesser retribution does not reach it:
Life imprisonment is not the solution, as it doesn't provide the required threshold to stop a considerable influx of future cases (if you really feel that the person truly intends to leave the wrong way and adopt a normal life, then there is a replacement method available).
It then compares the two methods:
To understand it another way, let's compare two methods of dealing: one is stone for stone (SFS), and the other is the Threshold Deficient Method (TDM), one that does not satisfy the minimum threshold for preventing future cases (by far, there is no effective way other than the SFS strategy) (the replacement method has a limited scope and is largely a way to deal with special cases).
and gives the measure:
A reasonable person can easily conclude that it is better to take vengeance on a criminal to save a hundred lives (simple math ratio) rather than to preserve a criminal and put a hundred lives at risk (it’s simple). (In practice, the effectiveness of the SFS strategy defines itself, i.e. its results, the number of future cases and the sense of security in the society, settle the matter on their own; however, these results can only be achieved when the retraction of the sources (see Step 2) is carried out alongside.)
This sub-section sets out the two methods as they were given: what each does to the number of future cases and to the sense of security in the society, and why these results are reached only with the retraction of the sources alongside.
What it measures, in plain words
When a life is taken, or a part of a body, nothing brings it back. The retribution cannot replace the damage, so one thing is asked of it: to prevent further cases of the same magnitude.
Two methods.
· Stone for stone (SFS). The irreversible damage is answered with the same.
· The Threshold Deficient Method (TDM). Every lesser retribution, life imprisonment among them. It does not reach the threshold that stops the influx of future cases.
The case given. A robbery in the house next door ends in the death of one of its members, and the criminal is caught days later. If he is freed at any time later, even after 25 years, the houses around him are put at risk again: "Would you feel safe if he were roaming freely?"
The simple ratio. One criminal is set against the hundred lives his freedom puts at risk. Taking vengeance on the one saves the hundred.
What settles it. The results of each method, on their own:
· the number of future cases;
· the sense of security in the society, read as a security shock is read, by "the rise in the demand for security, e.g. requests for guards, cameras or patrols".
Only with Step 2. These results are reached only when "the retraction of the sources (see Step 2) is carried out alongside". The SFS strategy should go hand in hand with nullifying the source of guilt; only then is the claim proved.
The replacement method stays for special cases: where the criminal "has the capability to return to normal", judged "by the past activity record or by keen observation".
So the reasoning stands as it was given: "by far, there is no effective way other than the SFS strategy".