@Paleouss
The theory @JesusFan is discussing depends on a 16th century judicial philosophy that views justice as a type of ledger that must be balanced and the judge as responsible for maintaining this balance. The person who is guilty is not the major factor. A crime creates a debt that must be collected and obligated the judge to collect this debt.
If you steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving hild the only factor considered is the penalty for theft, and this must be collected regardless of who pays the debt (the ledger must balance).
So to allow a murder go free somebody has to be executed or a judicial deficit will occur.
This was, around the 16th -17th centuries, a fairly common understanding of justice.
The theory @JesusFan is discussing depends on a 16th century judicial philosophy that views justice as a type of ledger that must be balanced and the judge as responsible for maintaining this balance. The person who is guilty is not the major factor. A crime creates a debt that must be collected and obligated the judge to collect this debt.
If you steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving hild the only factor considered is the penalty for theft, and this must be collected regardless of who pays the debt (the ledger must balance).
So to allow a murder go free somebody has to be executed or a judicial deficit will occur.
This was, around the 16th -17th centuries, a fairly common understanding of justice.