Regardless, I think equating capital punishment with ritual sacrifice is a fair judgement. No matter how rational our rituals and systems for killing people seem, there's no reason to suggest that the Aztecs did not feel similarly about their rituals and systems. Law is not supposed to be a science, so it's also not free from cultural relativism, even if you're not a cultural relativist generally.
Given the advanced bureaucratic practices common to empires in precolonial America, it seems the Aztecs simply required regular sacrificial deaths (via suicide or homicide) to maintain their office, in addition to regularly liquifying prisoners or the enslaved. Like a death camp which ran on self-motivated suicide, for reasons of cosmic accounting.
Personally I find 5DFractalTetris' claims to be preposterous and wrong, but IMHO downvotes should be reserved for something other than "I disagree with this comment."
I have to agree just a shade with the premise.
A lot of punishment is morally oriented, and it's derived from our value system which is headed by 'God', or at least an interpretation of that.
Murderers are executed not just to keep them off the streets, but as a matter of punishment which is fundamentally pleasing to our moral code ... headed by God.
I think old-school capital punishment is at least distantly related to the concept of sacrifice.
Though I wouldn't want to equate the two.
However, regardless of the metaphysical beliefs of a state, any entity of sufficient size & organization will often be recognized by an individual as possibly having godlike power over the individual's body. Whether or not that truth actually ritualizes state-sanctioned violence, or the diffused psychological impact of that violence can be called a sacrifice, is a matter of opinion; however, being that it is state-sanctioned it is obviously distinct from murder, and because these punishments often have no deterrent effect on the populace, their true nature is in camera obscura.
As modernists, we believe that it's important to punish the person who is responsible for a crime. It is not clear that is
1/ "Justice",
2/ shared by our ancestors,
3/ any more clear or moral than other belief systems.
It boils down to the purpose of the modern justice system. I've heard all the following reasons, each with deficiencies:
1) because doing wrong must be met with punishment (tautology)
2) because it keeps dangerous people off the street (not structurally optimized for)
3) because it makes our society safer (abstract/generic)
4) because it makes it clear that each individual is responsible for their actions (most believable to me)
I guess my question is this: why do we put people in jail (or kill them)? Personally, I don't think our justice system exists to make "good society" safer[0]; I think it's to control people so they behave in the same way those in charge want people to behave. (I.e., the initial motivation is amoral.)
[0] if so, victimless crimes wouldn't be so heavily regulated
In one world, we believe that a crime committed causes harm against a social construction. In the other...
To me, it seems like the crucial difference is whether the person responsible for the act is the one punished. It is not clear that is the objective of the modern (American) justice system. It is even less certain that was an issue with pre-Enlightenment justice systems.
Human nature seems to be more "someone has to pay!!" more than "the person responsible has to pay!"
Defining 2 things then calling the definition different is not compelling.
The thinking that makes them less different is that they both serve "a greater good" (a just society or secular society) or "specific good" (of a community or divine favor). How you perceive the original intent or what terms you use are not relevant to the association.
The big difference between war and human sacrifice is that the target of human sacrifice is not a threat or a random bystander.