An eye-for-an-eye, hunh?

What exactly does ‘restitution’ mean? According to Merriam-Webster:
(1) the act of restoring, or a condition of being restored
….(a) a restoration of something to its rightful owner
….(b) a making good of or giving an equivalent for some injury
(2) a legal action serving to cause restoration of a previous state

If the act was one of destruction or theft of property, then ‘restitution’ is possible. Is a punishment (after restitution) equal to the original transgression? No. It is imbalanced.

If the act was causing death, then how does one make ‘restitution’? ‘Justice’ may be served, if the accused is also put to death (as the life of the original is incomplete) – a punishment exacted.

Or, do we seek to teach the transgressor? Do we attempt to enforce the greater morality on the trangressor? If one is seeking freedom of the individual (and his right to believe as he decides), then one has to wonder if this “teaching” wouldn’t violate this precept.

Or, is the transgressor marooned, away from the society? Thus not imposing his immoral actions on the greater society. Unfortunately, this has been tried – with undesired affects. And, I might point out, we no longer have the room to do this. So, this punishment is no longer viable. But, is it ‘just’ for the society to shoulder the cost of maintaining the transgressor’s life *for his entire life*? No.

Is it more magnanimous to forgive, and thereby showing the victim to be greater than him – shaming him publically? Yes.

IMO ‘restitution’ is (as much as possible) a zero-sum game. A victim (or his heirs) ought to be made as whole as possible. From a victim’s viewpoint isn’t ‘justice’ served when he is restored? Does it really matter from whom (as long as the whom is willing?)