To keep this discussion simple, a metaphor has been adopted, that societies are clubs, we're their members, and the club rules are our laws. A society is a living entity, not just an assembly of members, and should be considered as such.

The purpose of this entry is to ask (and answer) two (rhetorical) questions.

Question 1

What is the purpose of The Rules?The Rules are there to preserve and promote the club. To allow a historically violent people to live closely together, the club places certain constraints on its membership. These are The Rules, and they should be interpreted in this light.

Question 2

For those found guilty of breaking The Rules, there are penalties. What is the purpose of these penalties? In Britain, there is no consensus on this matter, which may explain why our club rules are sometimes a bit difficult to understand.

There are at least three possible purposes for these penalties:

1. To punish the rule-breaker.
2. To deter other potential rule-breakers.
3. To protect club members from the possible future acts of the rule-breaker, maybe by attempting rehabilitation.

Question 2 is important because it gives fairly clear guidance towards suitable penalties for breaking The Rules. For example, consider Jim Rule-Breaker, who has been tried and found guilty of beating up some poor unfortunate on his way home from a Friday night drinking session.

1. 
   If the purpose is punishment, then perhaps it would be appropriate for several 'enforcers' to take Jim into a back room and give him a taste of his own medicine.
   
2. 
   If the purpose is deterrence, then we might think it more appropriate for the enforcers to dispense Jim's beating in a public place, where everyone can see what happens to those who break The Rules.
   
3. 
   If the purpose is the protection of members, then we ought to consider imprisoning Jim, or maybe deporting him (if we can find another club willing to accept him!) And if we don't intend Jim's sentence to last for life, we must seriously consider rehabilitation.
   

For a given Rule, the penalty varies according to what we hope it will achieve. If we haven't made the purpose of the penalties clear, we can hardly claim surprise if our Rules don't work as we had hoped.

The constructive purpose of punishment (revenge) as a reaction to rule-breaking is not clear. Deterrence is worthwhile, if it works. Perhaps the most important thing is to protect those club members who have yet to be harmed. [Sadly, nothing can be done for the poor man Jim beat up, as 'un-beating-up' isn't possible.] If we can find a way to rehabilitate Jim, this is desirable. If not, we'll have to kill him, or lock him up for life (some might feel this is worse than killing him).

There have been rehabilitation schemes whose re-offending rate is much lower than simple imprisonment. Few, if any, have got past their (successful!) trial stages. Perhaps this is because of a lack of agreement on why we apply these penalties? Those who favour revenge are unlikely to support such liberal alternatives...

If you knew the reasons for the penalties for breaking the rules of your club, it would make them easier to understand. And easier to criticise or improve. Talk about this to your friends. Publicise the debate. This is a win-win situation; only the current situation features losers.