When I initially read your reply I was going to suggest perhaps the homogeneity of Scandinavia might be a contributing factor. There is less of "us vs them" whereas in the UK and the US, there are many different groups of people, most of them are conquered people. In those cases, it's quite easy to see why there's such a sharp contrast. However, upon greater reflection, China also has very harsh sentences and a strong desire for revenge and China is pretty homogeneous so my initial theory doesn't make sense. One thing I wonder about is whether Scandinavia is the norm or the exception. To someone like me, a Chinese-American, harsh sentencing and "good vs evil" is the social norm, even if it's incredibly naive. I am now really curious as to what lead to the difference.

I think your premise is wrong. Scandinavia isn't as homogeneous as you think, and the UK and US aren't as diverse as you think. I can only assume China isn't as homogeneous as you think either. What it is, is that we are all conditioned to recognize a lot of diversity in what's familiar to us, while communities of strangers seem more or less the same to us.

I remember how relatives from the US visited a central European capital, and were surprised how little diversity they saw. To them Hungarians, Germans, Slovenes, Poles, Russians, Turks, Roma, Bulgarians, Greeks etc seemed all pretty much the same. I remember how I first visited a couple of north American major cities and was surprised how little diversity i saw. To me they seemed all pretty much the same.

I always find the disproportionate concern for the criminal at the expense of the victims fascinating. People say they show compassion for the perpetrator, but it is not the perpetrator that deserves compassion but the victim(s). To show compassion for the perpetrator is false compassion and unjust.

However, more to the point: why do you believe that all retribution is necessarily unjust? That's too broad a stroke and I think the problem has to do with modern sensibilities and also with semantics, i.e., words like "retribution" have taken on very narrow and pejorative meanings. Naturally, there are instances of retribution that are evil. These are instances of cruelty motivated by pride (understood as vice) and hatred of the other, or ones which are excessively harsh in relation to the crime committed. However, not all retribution is of such a nature, and indeed inadequate or deficient punishment is evil and unjust.

Of course, we cannot know absolutely what motivates a jury or a judge, but these are third parties that ideally have no personal stake in the matter and thus not as susceptible to acting out of hatred for the offender. If the punishment is on par with the crime committed and is done out of a desire for justice, a desire to reform the offender (when applicable) and with the preservation of the juridico-social order, then there is no issue with retribution. Indeed, it is in this case a virtuous thing.

> All the way back to Viking times Scandinavians have practices much milder punishment than the Anglo-Saxons.

Are you including the blood eagle in that comparison :)