>>the purpose of retribution is actively to injure criminal offenders, ideally in proportion with their injuries to society

Eye for an Eye leaves everyone blind.

Further I have always taken issue with the concept of "injury to society", I am an individualist so to me society is just a bunch of individuals working under voluntary cooperation

Criminals injure an individual not society, thus any restitution is owed to individuals not society at large

>>The impulse to do harm to someone who does harm to you is older than human society, older than the human race itself

Granted however the entire purpose of civilization, especially western civilization is to become greater than are base instincts, to allow reason and logic to rule over emotion.

Civilization to me is not a conduit to "relinquish the personal right to act on this impulse, and transfer responsibility for retribution to some governing body" as no one has a personal right to act in retribution, and since no one has that right they have no ability to transfer that right to the governing body.

The only ethical use of force is in defense, imitation of force is always unethical

Fines should be in service to restitution, including a "pain and suffering" fine which is often viewed today as "punishment" but in reality is restitution for the victim(s).

The problem is we have removed the concept of restitution from the criminal system and leave it to the domain of civil law almost exclusively with a few exceptions (normally property crimes)

Incarceration should be about rehabilitation and/or removal from society as a defense not retribution. The Prison system should be humane, where inmates would not be physically abused by other inmates or guards, not be subjected to systematic physical or psychological abuse, should be provided basic nutrition, and health care, etc

This can not be said to be true for the US prison system today

It should also be a place to get mental health treatments, and even learn new skills or other methods to return as a productive member of society

>> the majority of the U.S. citizenry still holds that it's right to exact retribution on criminal offenders

This highlights why I will never support a direct democracy. Mob rule almost always the worst outcome

>>This is almost certainly true of the majority of victims

Which is why we separate victims from being judge and jury, emotional responses are not good for civilization

>>What rape victim does not wish to see her attacker suffer? What parent does not hate the one who killed their child?

Many, it is not uncommon for victims to want to see their attacker isolate, not not be able to hurt them or anyone else again. I believe it would be uncommon for victims to advocate torture, abuse or suffering. People that maintain this desire past a grieving or shock period psychologically are probably not far removed from the criminals they are waiting to abuse.

>>until the moral certainty of a majority of society points towards compassion rather than revenge, this is the form the criminal law must take.

No, I neither agree that the majority of society points to aggression nor agree that even if it did then that is the form society must take. As I said before mob rule is almost never the correct outcome. If you look back in history you will see all kinds of atrocities committed due to statements like the one you just made "Well the people demand it so we must do X".

The concept of human rights and equality demands we reject retribution as the basis of criminal justice