I agree with what it sounds like you are saying: Punishment for the sake of revenge, even to a hasnamuss, just makes for MORE evil. It seems that it is evil because it is still enjoyment or satisfaction due to someone else's suffering. Best would be to lock this person up so that they cannot hurt anyone else, or fix the situation so the person does not have the opportunity to hurt anyone else.
You mentioned that you still visit your father. I am not asking this for you to answer here on this forum, but has he ever apologized to you, or acknowledged that he violated a very important boundary with you? Maybe he does feel remorse but has not said anything, maybe you can sense that. Or if he and your mother haven't changed... that calls for a lot of inner work from you, a lot of processing. It is really something that you have the compassion to visit them - if they have not changed.
One worry I have is if he really has not changed, and could still be a danger to children. If your mother does not yet understand that she needs to protect children from him, then that is very not good. For example, if they babysit a grandchild, and she leaves the child with him while she runs errands... very not good.
I am pretty sure that was what I was trying to say, yes =) I don't feel more punishment, is a 'good' form of justice - and I don't think the systems used in this world are able to offer a satisfactory solution to the problem.
One interesting prison I have read about is in Norway : _http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/24/world/europe/norway-prison-bastoy-nicest/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
In some ways I guess it is like 'supervised' criminals, who can go to work and still 'contribute' to society. I think the theory is interesting, at least.
I think I was also just trying to air my thoughts on "what do people feel 'justice' really is?".
1. The quality of being just; fairness.
2.a. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
b. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
3.a. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
b. Law The administration and procedure of law.
4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason
do justice to
To treat adequately, fairly, or with full appreciation
2. (Philosophy) Ethics
a. the principle of fairness that like cases should be treated alike
b. a particular distribution of benefits and burdens fairly in accordance with a particular conception of what are to count as like cases
c. the principle that punishment should be proportionate to the offence
3. (Law) the administration of law according to prescribed and accepted principles
4. (Law) conformity to the law; legal validity
Of course everyone will have their own internal definition of the word - and the terms on which they will use it.
In terms of the article - the 'killing' by the father, seems to have been an accident. I hope the little girl can learn and understand that her father acted in order to protect her, out of his justified anger; but also that he had not 'intended' to kill the man (even if he perhaps had felt like doing so!). If her father is not 'punished' within the law system for inadvertently killing another (whether in self-defense or in defense of another), I hope that the little girl does not grow to assume that killing is an acceptable form of punishment. I don't know, I think she is young still to fully understand what has happened, but she will of course be very impressionable - I worry for her in the sense of what she is being told, who is doing the explaining, and 'what' is being explained.
I don't even know if a 'perfect solution' is even a correct concept - one could argue, that everything that happens and has happened, are themselves 'perfect solutions' because they are all lessons, in order to teach us something. They are 'necessary' for our learning - suffering, however distasteful - is a lesson in itself. I don't 'think' we can assume people are innocent or don't deserve their lives and their lessons. However we can learn to exercise our free will in the choices that we make - is it 'right' for us to 'choose' to intervene in others lessons? Or is our choice to intervene, a lesson in itself, for us or them? Is there a 'right' or 'wrong' answer? I find it incredibly confusing!!!
Regarding my own situation, I was very, very angry for a long time - and am still angry but less demonstrably so. I do recall a conversation with my father (although the circumstance in hindsight I find amusing. I had moved 'back' in with my family as the depression symptoms I was displaying had made me think I was 'missing' my family/siblings - however after a severe panic attack which my mother had called a 'fit' she told me she didn't want me in the house anymore, she wanted me to move out [possibly it made her feel guilty]. So [it was late in the evening] I had just walked out of the house with no shoes on and wandered around the streets for a while before my dad found me) - I 'think' he said something along the lines of 'sorry', and appeared remorseful - he was always the conciliator and 'peace maker' between my mother and I in those emotional argument situations - as he has always had that kind of father role, it has been extremely difficult for me to 'capture' how I feel about him. It is almost as if he is many different people to me.
With regards to future children around him : this has also been a subject I have thought carefully on, even if I haven't come to a comfortable solution myself. My sister will be 21 this year, and is fully aware of what happened as I have spoken to her in depth on the subject - I know she is aware of what happened, and it is therefore up to her in terms of what decisions she will/would make regarding any children she may have. Up until she was about 16-17, she was never allowed in the house alone with him (without my mother or brother present) and they were still 'aware' (according to my mother) of the situation and risks. I don't think it's as 'forefront' in their minds anymore, however I do think my mother would take precautions regarding allowing (or not allowing as the case may be) him to be alone with children.
However my brother has never been comfortable talking to me about the subject. He has never allowed me to elaborate about what happened, although I have tried to explain to him in broad terms what dad did - he didn't want to hear it or listen, so I didn't push the subject. But I don't know what, if anything, he has told his wife. I know she wants children - so regardless of my brothers wishes (whatever they may be), for my own conscience sake (in terms of risk to any children), I will definitely ask my sister-in-law what my brother has told her - and definitely inform her - should she become pregnant. So that she may have knowledge and be able to make her own decisions and choices with regards to their children. I would never want to 'put' any children at risk, and as much as I would love to protect every child and keep them from harms way and wrap them in cotton wool - I don't think it's my place to make parents choices for them. All I can do is try and give them the information that will enable them to take their own measures to protect their children.
But it does bother me, that so many parents 'don't know', and don't have that knowledge in order to take their own precautions. And even if they did - 'would' they?