> Brunnen-G's example from Les Miserables is an interesting choice, but I believe it to be flawed. First, she says it's "fair" that Valjean doesn't go back to jail, since he's a good guy. But is that fair to the people from whom he stole? Similarly, she says that justice is for Valjean to be sent back to jail, since that is "the LAW." But are we to believe that justice is nothing more than doing what is according to the law?

I, for one, can't see the 'fairness' or 'justice' of locking someone in for several years because they took something that wasn't theirs. Prison is a way of putting away or postponing problems. It's a solution, but it's not the *only* or necessarily the *right* or *best* one. At least not in the case of petty theft. I actually haven't experienced Les Miserables in any form yet, so I don't know what went down there, though.

What I'm trying to say, is that if prisons -- or, indeed, the mere *idea* of prisons -- didn't exist, I wouldn't think of locking the thief away in a room as a logical "payback".

But then you have the other types of theft, like embezzlement, fraud etc. And murderers, rapists and other harmdoers should be put out of harm's way, but they should also receive treatment in some way, I think.

While writing this post, I realize more and more what a complex issue this is...

Trav"too naïve, I suppose"holt.