"The common sense of the majority of people lead them to support the death penalty-- they instinctively realize that certain heinous crimes call for the ultimate punishment, not because of bloodlust, but because justice calls for a congruent satisfaction in order to restore as much as possible the moral damage done by the perpetrator."
"The common sense of the majority of people" & "instinctively realize" = "gut reaction"
"certain heinous crimes" = "anything bad some Yankee done to me & mine"
"justice calls for a congruent satisfaction" = "get a rope"
Or, if you want a short and easy translation of the whole paragraph: "Some people just need to get kilt."
Hmmm . . . That sounds a lot like vengeance to me. Oh well, I can't possibly keep up with Tom's quoting of 13th century Latin screeds so I'm not in a position to get into a theological argument with him. Even if I tried he'd probably nuke me by starting to discourse in Latin, Greek, Hebraic, or Sanskrit (well, probably not Sanskrit).
BTW: Tom, Priti Patel looks kinda cute - any chance of getting me an introduction?
BTW, BTW: Why isn't the killing of likes instead of actuals acceptable as a valid punishment? For instance, if Jon Smith kills Peter Jones' infant child wouldn't society accomplish a more congruent punishment by killing Jon Smith's child? And wouldn't that, in general, create much more of a deterrent?