This show would better be entitled the immorality of revenge. Your lawyer is saying justice and revenge are the same thing. I couldn't disagree more. YThe show demonstrated zero understanding of the unjust conditions that underly perpetration in many cases. Those are unjust conditions. Victims should not decide what happens to perpetrators. Often victims are indeed part of the dynamic. Not always. But sometimes. Your speaker lacks a sense of justice because he is so keen on revenge. I believe the desire for revenge should not be indulged.

惩罚/监禁有四个原因。不知何故，他们忽视了社会保护，这是主要原因之一。一个犯了值得监禁的罪行的人，是指对他的行为造成的伤害表现出一种想要造成伤害的欲望或冷漠/疏忽的人。世界杯赛程2022赛程表欧洲区这使得他很可能重蹈覆辙。监禁是社会选择自卫的一种方式。
约翰认为美国追杀本拉登是出于报复。严重吗?从1993年开始，他和他发起的运动精心策划和策划了几次袭击:世界贸易中心(1993年)、美国驻非洲大使馆、9/11、马德里、伦敦、巴厘岛……其他几次攻击都失败了。杀死本拉登仅仅是出于报复，甚至主要是出于报复的想法，在很大程度上让人难以相信。
Another reason, deterrence, is quite powerful. The problem with eye-for-an-eye or commensurate punishment is that, unless the perpetrator believes with certainty that he would be caught, commensurate punishment cannot deter. If I could steal $100,000 and at worst have to repay the $100,000, then why not do it? I'd have nothing to lose, and $100,000 to gain! Granted there is no credible evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder compared with life-imprisonment, but only naivete could allow one to conclude that would-be criminals do not weigh potential incarceration.
Additionally, in criminal proceedings, the victim (or the victim's family) can become a witness, only insofar as he has something material to contribute -- material in the determination of guilty or not guilty. Otherwise, to describe the extent of the harm incites emotions in the jurors, who ought to render their judgements dispassionately. Once found guilty, then victims and their families can testify, in the sentencing phase.
Emotional decisions can too easily compound one injustice, the harm caused to the victim, with a second injustice, a wrongful conviction, because jurors will be more likely to want to search for someone to blame.
Lastly, the guest's argument seems to be that since vengeance feels good and is natural, it is moral. Yet monogamy is rare in Nature and for many does not feel good; theft feels good and is natural, particularly when the perpetrator can "get away with it." I thought that the very idea of morality, the development of moral codes, is to rise above what is natural, what does not need to be taught or instilled.

我觉得客人很危险地接近于支持主观公正——因为你觉得自己被冤枉了，你有权对你认为是肇事者的人寻求公正。他举了一个极端的例子——一个孩子的凶手利用法律漏洞获得了减刑。那不太明确的情况呢，当罪行没有被承认，当罪行不是十恶不赦的时候?在我看来，没有什么比允许主观公正更危险的了。没有过程，没有理由，没有证据评估。这是非法的。
On a completely different note, I really disliked that the guest said of a caller, "I'm sure she's lovely, but [her ideas are ridiculous]." I thought it was rude and dismissive. There are more respectful ways of disagreeing.

I think we have to differentiate revenge first. As the name and description implies, it is a premeditated action to return the pain that was inflicted. In nature, when a tiger bites your leg of after you've poked it with a stick, we do not call it revenge, instead it is normal behavior for the animal in question: it simply defends it's own territory and it's own life. Assuming animals do not have higher thinking -like humans and other primates- this causal relationship is almost automatic. Now when applied to humans, we can say the same. When someone attacks you, the autonomous nervous system has only two choices:
1) release adrenaline to the muscles and prepare to run.
2) release adrenaline to the muscles and get ready to fight.
Still, we are human and we are capable of higher thinking. We can basically override our basic instincts, we can master our bodily responses. So we can choose to defuse the situation for our own best interest, because every fight has victims on both sides. We can look into the future, and we can predict that we might get hurt, die or will be arrested if we lose our cool. But then the question arises: what is this emotion that we call revenge? especially after the situation that took place has past. I think it has to do with our ego and the need to take action upon inflicted pain.
战斗或逃跑的选择并不能让我们满足，在这种行为中我们的自尊可能会受到伤害。其他人见证了我们的耻辱，我们的内疚，我们的非人化和施加的痛苦。由于人类是社会动物，确实有一种等级制度或等级秩序，在某种情况下的社会退化使我们想要恢复原来的社会地位。所以基本的领土行为又回来了。我们要么让它过去，可能满足于自己较低的社会地位，要么采取报复行动来恢复我们的社会地位。这里的悖论是，通过报复的行为，我们甚至可能会在社会阶梯上走得更远。另一方面，我们也可能被视为强有力的领导者。无论如何，这是一种高度复杂的情感。

I appreciate higher thinking as much as the next homo sapient. This evening, though, I encountered a paradigm not previously known. A person new to my realm of experience was speaking of something called a Canadian Tuxedo party. Had never heard of this. Seems people show up, dressed head-to-toe in denim, and do whatever else they may do to denigrate Canada and Canadian culture. Jane (not her real name) is around thirty-five years of age. I asked her what she knew about Canada. She admitted not much. I asked her what she thought about such tuxedo parties. Her response was, well, it was what we did. And so, here we go and there we are...oh, by the way, Canadian tuxedos look pretty much like American tuxedos. Unless someone wants something different.

宽恕是强大?我必须承认我以前从未听说过。许多年前(嗯，十多年前，不到二十年前)，我在马里兰州参加了一个雇主赞助的为期一周的培训课程。培训是由来自著名大学的知名人士进行的。主题:中介。在这一周中，一位老师提出了道歉是调停纠纷的有力工具的观点。我想是这样的，但我从来没有真正找到答案，因为在训练和花费了国家的钱之后，我从来没有机会锻炼我所获得的技能:训练成为一个调解人，但从来没有机会发展这种技能。我从来没想过。那么，道歉和原谅是一样的吗?好吧，它们可能在意图上是近亲，但当它们的应用仅仅是façade时，它们都不值得唾骂。 Ethically, 21st century homo sapiens is mostly bankrupt, in my view. You may quote me, if you wish. The notion is not new.(After thought: The political jackass who sent me to mediation training lost his job, only to be promoted to another political jackass position---hmmph.)