It's the fundamental question here. Is justice a "means to an end" or "an end in itself"? You're with the former, I'm with the latter.
I would also attack the notion of "evidence" here. The previous poster is not making an empirical argument at all, he's only pretending to. If Scandinavia had more crime than SF, he would pick another example (notice how he dismisses Singapore for...reasons). He's defending an a priori belief, as am I. Empiricism fails us here, we're arguing over values.
> It strikes me as really strange to consider punishments for crimes as a sort of state-sponsored revenge.
Justice is carried out by a disinterested third party (the state), revenge is not.
I would also attack the notion of "evidence" here. The previous poster is not making an empirical argument at all, he's only pretending to. If Scandinavia had more crime than SF, he would pick another example (notice how he dismisses Singapore for...reasons). He's defending an a priori belief, as am I. Empiricism fails us here, we're arguing over values.
> It strikes me as really strange to consider punishments for crimes as a sort of state-sponsored revenge.
Justice is carried out by a disinterested third party (the state), revenge is not.