Correct. The "system" if you can even call it that is not stemming coherently from any moral foundations.
1 and 2 are the same. To say a wrongdoer deserves punishment is to say it's good to punish. Deserves is language of morality. 3 is completely unrelated.
This article is nonsense.
Also from the article:
> My challenge for readers: Propose any alternative to retributivism that precludes family punishment.
I'm sorry but that is hilarious. Here's one off the top of my head, having literally never thought about this before.
1. Punishing the innocent is wrong.
2. Literally any ideas at all about crime and punishment that don't violate point 1.
That passes the author's sniff test anyway. Is there a bounty for such a challenge?
> That’s right, I think that inflicting suffering on vicious wrong-doers is morally praiseworthy even in the absence of any deterrent effect. Deterrence is a happy byproduct, but the fundamental point of punishment is to balance the scales of justice.
This is caveman levels of moral justification. What does it mean to balance the scales? If somebody is maimed, and we maim the maimer, does that count?
The first act worsened the victims life and the second act did nothing to help them. Doesn't feel like the scales are tipping correctly. It doesn't even seem that using analogies about scales is even useful to the conversation. It's almost like the issue is really complex and can't be summed up as a system in 2.5 bullet points by way of measuring scales.