That's the "punitive" side of things. Certainly, it seems "fair" to ensure the punishment is equal to the crime, but fair isn't the same as just. Why don't you go Code of Hammurabi on someone, and inflict the same kind of injury? The logic still holds. Of course, it now requires people willing to commit torture and rape and the like, to equal the crime, but that's the logical conclusion of trying to be "fair".

But even without taking it to its conclusion, I'd contend "fairness" as you define it there isn't necessarily the best outcome for society; an ex-hacker is probably an excellent choice when hiring for electronic security, an ex-robber an excellent choice for hiring for physical security, etc. Even a murderer can go on to great things that benefit society. I mean, hell, Miguel De Cervantes, author of Don Quixote, the first modern novel, wrote his first published work while in prison. The Birdman of Alcatraz (Robert Stroud), a murderer, published major works in ornithology, and found a cure for a bird disease. Rehabilitated criminals can still benefit all of us, as well as redeem themselves in their own eyes by doing good for themselves and their loved ones.

But all that aside, you're saying you believe the additional punishment should be societal scorn carried out by vigilantes (i.e., average citizens deciding the person shouldn't hold a job even though they've paid the price the courts decided on)? That hardly seems just or 'fair'.

There is a rights-based approach in which (a) yes, someone inflicting a harm on you gives you the right to inflict a proportionate harm on them; (b) you can then go to them and threaten to inflict this harm, and usually get them to agree to pay you a fine instead, thus benefiting both of you. Labor could be used to substitute for a fine if someone can't pay, although I think in today's prisons the prisoners don't necessarily do work.

There are problems. For example, breaking a professional tennis player's arm may be much more career-damaging, and arguably "worse", than breaking a professional chess player's arm; and excessive retaliation is itself a crime. In that case, it may be good to get a judge or some such to evaluate the severity before carrying out the retaliation. That also goes for judging the evidence—obviously, punishing someone for a crime they didn't commit is itself a crime. So one could imagine this turning into something at least vaguely resembling today's court system.

This is a jaw-droppingly horrific system you're imagining. Amongst other things you've effectively insulted rich criminals from any repercussions, and basically given them a slave underclass (please, no snarky comments about current justice system). Do you genuinely think this a good idea?

Our current legal system has evolved over many hundreds of years. I merely describe a set of initial conditions and a few possible early developments. The space of things it might evolve into seems pretty wide. I do suspect some of those things would be good. That said, in the meantime:

There have existed societies in which the penalty for murder was to pay a fine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild

Also, this doesn't insulate rich criminals from all repercussions. If they have enough money to pay the fines when murdering tens of people... well, you could try killing the criminal directly. You can do that today as well, if you're prepared to pay the price.

A really rich criminal could hire bodyguards, of course, but those would be costly, imperfect, and have some chance of turning against their employer. Ultimately it would become a rich guy in charge of an organized criminal gang, which... is also something that exists today.

We know how this goes, because forms of it are what the current system evolved into; there are obvious descendents of what you say in the legal system. But that doesn't mean applying it literally, as with your "early developments", wouldn't have awful consequences.

> ...If they have enough money to pay the fines when murdering tens of people...

It's not about "murdering tens of people". It's killing someone whilst drunk driving, or murdering someone in an argument. These situations clearly still happen in the current system. But with what you're saying codifies that, if someonene is rich, as long as their crime is not against someone else rich, they can generally avoid any repercussions. Blood libel is still a thing, can literally see it in action in countries which have legal systems that allow it.

Not really sure what your point here is in relation to my post. That if we didn't have a legal system or governmental authority that we collectively have agreed to allow to arbitrate these matters, it would be left up to individuals to do, and that such a system is ripe (per your later comments) of exploitation by the rich? I mean, sure, but hardly seems relevant to the comment or the current state of most countries.

Your attitude towards someone convicted of a criminal act isn’t uncommon, but it’s short-sighted. If the judicial system determines that the appropriate punishment for a crime is X years, then at the end of that time they should be given a chance at a fresh start. There are limits, of course, perhaps you don’t want to give them a security clearance, or a job that requires carrying a gun. Someone convicted of molesting children should probably never hold a job that gives them contact with children.

In the US at least, having a felony conviction (and the bar for that is not that high) is effectively a lifetime punishment. It’s incredibly difficult for someone with a felony conviction on their record to get a job with potential. That’s a big part of why the recidivism rate for felons is so high. They often don’t have many options to make a living.

> If the judicial system determines that the appropriate punishment for a crime is X years, then at the end of that time they should be given a chance at a fresh start.

This is a poor argument: the judicial system has also determined, by lack of prohibition, that it's appropriate for employers to discriminate based on criminal record.

'Determined that it's appropriate' is rather strong language for something the system simply does not universally address. In fact, EEOC guidance, and recent court cases, seem to indicate that were it brought in front of the courts, they would likely rule in favor of the plaintiffs (obviously with recent court packing by GOP that's more in question than it was a few years ago though). It's just that oftentimes, ex-criminals searching for jobs don't have the money to take such cases to court.

That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be changed.

But that wasn't your argument!

> at the end of that time they should be given a chance at a fresh start

It really was.

It might have been something you were thinking, but it's pretty much the opposite of what you said.

Often the judicial system is flat out wrong. In Ireland the prisons are so full everyone gets a slap on the wrist and a suspended sentence for even public endangerment crimes.

Where do the occupants of the full prisons come from then? Are the prisons full of life sentence prisoners from back when they weren't full?

That's a good question which I don't have the answer to. Things used to be less lenient so it would stand to reason that spaces are taken by previous longer sentencees. Ireland doesn't have many spaces to begin with. From wikipedia:

> Prisons and prison population

>There are 12 prisons in the Republic of Ireland with a total bed capacity of 4,106 as of 31 December 2009. The daily average number of prisoners in custody in 2009 was 3,881. However, most of these prisons currently operate at or above capacity.[13] On 25 January 2011 the prison population stood at 4,541. There were about 80 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants in October 2015,[11] and in Northern Ireland it was 78 per 100,000 in February 2016.

This points to a cultural difference there that might be at the core the argument. In Europe prison has rehabilitation as one of it's goals. In the US it's almost entirely about punishment.

The state does more injustice in the name of "fairness" than almost any other agent for any ther reason.

I have to say "almost" as there is the very rare criminal who is actually mean and targets people the way the state does.

People denied access. Denied votes. Denied work. Denied the means to live.