Revenge and Justice

I feel that 'revenge' and 'justice' are sometimes the same thing.
But, let's remember, Midas S'dom are middas of justice. Justice includes, I have no obligation to loan or give you something, even if it means no loss to myself.

In contrast to that just right of mine, it can be argued, and I do, that I have no right to deny you the use of my "property" if it causes me no loss.
(I am aware that some things are personal, including space, so I do not automatically include such cases as being obligatory to 'loan out'.)

Example: There's no sidewalk, you're walking in the street, the traffic is picking up, you choose to walk on an expensive green lawn, crushing some of the blades of the precious, sensitive grass. I say, not only do you have a right to degrade that grass, you have an obligation to do so. That land, the ownership of that land on the side of the mildly dangerous road is not absolute. If I put expensive plants by the side of the road leaving you no place to walk, that's my problem, for your right to avoid mild danger over-rides my 'right' to that land, especially if I don't have a side walk as an option for you.

I now compare my demand for 'justice' - not for deterrence or compensation - to refusing my to loan out something which costs me nothing. (=Middas S'dom)
Demanding punishment when there is nothing to be gained for the victim, no money no reduction in future crimes, such a demand for 'justice' is, I suggest, middas S'dom, immoral, wrong. I understand the sentiments for the demand, but I compare it to a base desire, no different than a desire for excessive sweets and foods.
Demanding a punishment that does not reform, compensate, nor deter seems to have no redeeming value by definition. Therefore, we should throw it out. It has no place in a moral justice system. Such a demand for 'justice' without any good to be gained is not 'good' by definition.

In an age where we all agree in taxing "property" - which is merely a redistribution of wealth - which, put another way, is stealing from the one to give to another... we all agree with that form of taking. Some say, even for a good reason, it's 'theft'.

If there's zero chance (I admit this is rare and unlikely) zero chance a person can do the crime again, if it's not a matter of
1. deterring others
2. reforming the person
3. compensating the victim
then - and only then - it seems like midas S'dom (it might also be unhealthy, mentally, for the person demanding 'justice', over the long term).

I have heard secular capital punishment defended on the grounds of justice, meaning, they wanted this form of punishment regardless if it decreased or increased future crimes.

I don't see the point of that, I think it lacks moral foundation, I think it's mean spirited, backward thinking, unhealthy, that sort of thing.

Does it deter? Perhaps, and if so, I don't have an argument against deterrence, preventing future crimes. Except that we should make room for repentance and reform, but I admit those two variables, repentance and reform can be mixed with punishment strictly for deterrence. Again, some believe in punishment for 'justice' even to the contradiction of reform and deterrence, and it is that position with which I have a strong moral question.

Do note, however, I don't think it is so simple to distinguish punishment for justice and punishment for deterrence in practice. Further, the picture of the parent who pretends to be angry serves as a powerful deterrent. Therefore, the society which punishes 'for justice' without regard to deterrence or reform, nevertheless may unwittingly provide for deterrence all the more so.

For example, if Silver City chops off the hands of thieves strictly 'for justice' it may be that they also deter crime, accidentally. So it's not so simple to split the two, 'justice' and 'deterrence' in practice.

Thank you for your post. As a reward, I ran the above through a spell checker. Wow. I didn't know how to spell any variation of 'deter', the document lit up like a fireworks display, red all over the place...