Basically as the question asks; should a punishment fit a crime? I'm asking this partly because of the firearms thread, where the right to defend property seemed to equate to condoning use of possibly lethal force. Against someone else who is armed is this fair? Someone who is unarmed? Would you really condone the shooting of someone robbing your house even if they literally were just there for your TV? Should graffiti artists be made to clean it up? Those done for GBH/assault have the **** beaten out of them by the plods? Those for murder killed? Those for manslaughter accidently killed? Are some of the ideas mentioned above actually acceptable given the occasional errors by the judicial system? Is vigilante action (as described by defending property) more or less open to flaws? If so why do we have a judicial system? I know it's a lot of questions, but some stuff that's been posted recently got me thinking. I'm all up for making small scale (petit theft etc) criminals have like for like punishment, but beyond that I do believe in rehab and labour which would benefit the state (not quite breaking rocks, but cleaning stuff etc). In the current climate in the UK most criminals aren't actually armed, especially with firearms, by allowing a response it would be raising the game. Hence why there is talk about "appropriate response" which isn't the easiest thing to define in law.