I would just say that if one truly believes the sole purpose of a justice system is socially-mandated vengeance and retribution, one has an incredibly immature (but regrettably incredibly common) view of what justice is and why it is virtuous to pursue it.
That aside, no retribution is even
possible in the Rokkenjima scenario, as the culprit (if any) is (probably) dead. The reasons for their condemnation would have nothing whatsoever to do with the retributive properties of justice and everything to do with addressing a wrong with truth, preserving social order and public morality by proving that there is no perfect crime, exonerating innocent victims, and granting closure to those tangentially affected. Not one of these things requires that anyone be punished, but they all demand truth for justice to be done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalAura
Or by preserving uncertainty about the culprit, it remains possible for each individual person to be innocent in some fragment. Nobody has to be damned.
|
The criminal (if there is one) deserves to be. They're a murderer! We can't let them spread their blame out and take innocence from their victims undeservedly. That's allowing them to victimize innocent people
twice. It's wrong and it's unjust.
Besides... what if it really, truly, genuinely was just an incredibly tragic freak accident? Then everyone
is innocent... and all speculation to the contrary ought to be put to rest for good. Otherwise we're punishing the memory and families of those who did no wrong. That too is wrong and unjust.
Truth is no one's enemy but a culprit's, and the culprit gave up the right to slink off into uncertainty when he or she resolved to murder innocent people.