The solution I imagine is… very involved, to say the least, but not too costly, as we shall see, except perhaps in terms of educating people about my brand of justice…

First, I don’t like making people who don’t care about it pay anything toward the salaries of those running the court system under which the criminal (sorry, alleged criminal) was tried, but I think there’s enough good will in the world for those costs to be covered voluntarily.  (Wouldn’t it be nice if governments only did those things for which citizens voluntarily paid?)  So, assuming that there was a trial which identified the crimes that the criminal (no longer just alleged) actually committed, the next step is PAY BACK.

Pay back involves three prongs:
A) The criiminal’s wealth and possessions (if any) are to be used to fund the rest of payback.
B) The victims are each granted rights to a portion of the criminal’s life, and are allowed to trade them with each other or with others.  Yes, this essentially means that the criminal becomes a slave.  Egregious violation of widely recognized individual rights (“crime”, that is) should be tantamount to enslaving oneself to those individuals, and the forfeiture of most of those rights.
C) The criminal is given a chance to show that he can be of some value to those whose rights he has violated.

Ostensibly lacking from PAY BACK is murder, as well as anything that prevents or prohibits the criminal from making amends.  Killing the criminal (possibly “in self-defense”) can be judged by going back to the beginning, with the new killer as the alleged criminal.

The point of this system is that the natural consequence of bad behavior is the requirement that one repair the damage one caused, or pay for such repairs, being forcibly separated, if necessary, from anything of value to him in order to accomplish those repairs.  This, of course, begs the question, what is the value of a human life?  Regardless of the answer, however, it can be agreed that whoever took away a human life can make no reparations if he is dead.  An eye for an eye makes everyone blind, but put a yoke on the gouger and make him lead his blinded victim, and justice comes into view.

This is a very idealistic view, but that is because it is based on an ideal I see in our future, wherein governments DO only those things for which citizens *voluntarily* pay.  I suppose the ideal may be better described thus:  everyone will pay only for what they want, and they will expect only what they pay for.  Why is it otherwise?  Why?

I like your brand of justice better than the one that seems to be operational these days.

And I think that (slowly) some progress is being made.  Although it’s VERY discouraging to watch the news sometimes.

My reasoning for opposing the death penalty is simple. (other than the fact that revenge, which is what it is, not justice, is not healing in the slightest)...

Anyway, my reasoning is this: Until I can look at my 5 year old son and tell him that it’s ok to kill people sometimes and not other times, I can’t agree with it.