Crime and Punishment

When we were all barbarians our criminal justice was done more on the basis of vendetta. An eye for an eye or an ear for an ear. Probably when returned it could have been with some interest also added to the principal. With advance from the barbarian state to modern civilized state did not our criminal justice also advanced? Do we punish someone who has perpetrated a crime as a vendetta? Is not the modern cultured society dispense its justice system as a deterrent so that perpetrator will not repeat it again? A crime done against an individual is as much a crime to the society as well. Is it not why all the criminal cases are between the government and the perpetrator. The victim or the heirs of the victims do not have much voice in the case. They can only implead im the civil aspect of the case and not in the criminal aspect.
Why the society takes up the case? Because if the perpetrator may again do it against the society. He should be restricted from repeating it. So he has to be punished so that he understand that he has done a crime against the society and should not repeat it. It is not vendetta by the victim. It is to reform the criminal so that he is no danger to the society.
Which society should do this act of reforming the person who has done the criminal act? It is the society of which the individual who has done the crime is a part. It is not the victims side with whom he had only a casual contact. As long as a vendetta is an acknowledged system of criminal justice, the victim nor the society of which the victim is a part has no right to deal with the criminal aspect. Only the civil aspect where the victim or the victim's legal heirs can approach for appropriate compensation. So the society representing the victims cannot deal with the criminal case.
In the case of Enrica Lexie, when the two Italian Marines shot the two Indian fishermen, it is the Italian citizens who have committed the crime. Their sojourn in Indian territory is transitional. It is for very short while and in the normal case it cannot be expected that they will be repeating the same shooting again. India need not have any concern on that count.
On the other hand for Itally it is not so. These are two Marines who could be armed quite often. If they are trigger happy to shoot at anyone at the slightest provocation of suspicion they are dangerous to the Italian society. So it is Italy which should take precautionary steps that such things do not repeat.
And so I think it is Italy who should try the marines and not India.