I mostly agree with that you have stated previously. The intent of penal law is to protect society and not necessarily avenge a crime or mishap. I will not discuss Rajam here as I have debated that before with you and the discussion eventually leads into the Nasikh Mansukh concepts to get into depth. Its just the last para of your post that caught me. In what Br. Teggy stated, a death caused by accident cannot be paralleled with crime, in which case, compensation within just limits is probably the most sensible way out. If in KSA, people are beheaded for accidental deaths (or where it is not the intentional fault of a person) then I would argue that it is wrong because it cannot be proved that there was a criminal intent, which is what should make it liable to penal law. The most one should demand is compensation to make up for a loss.
