Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post
Sure. I like your response. I'd go with pretty much the same - though also it should be said that criminal punishment may be appropriate if guilt can be proven using the normal methods in a court of law / war crimes tribunal.
I agree, and I believe the only fit form of punishment for someone who refuses to repent from their sins, or infractions of God's laws, is to send them to live where they can do no more harm while still doing whatever I can to help them know how to become rehabilitated, and while just leaving them, in that other place, until they make that choice.

Also, a brief comment that the scenario you outline, the "ticking time bomb" scenario, exists only on TV. In educating myself about real interrogation scenarios, I have found interrogators say that if they can get a suspect to talk about anything (beyond Name, Rank, and Number), they will talk about everything.
We had him talking, and he still wouldn't tell us what we wanted to know.

I suppose that's true, but it's very difficult for humans to judge the veracity of another's claim to repentance. The old slogan "Trust, but verify" may be appropriate - and in some circumstances the gravity of the offense may require containing a person out of concern for recidivism.
Those who repent show by their own works that they have repented, or that they are in the process of repenting.

If they don't do it again, they have repented. If they do it again, they haven't repented, so they would still need to be rehabilitated while living somewhere else until they are willing to become rehabilitated.

The only thing society needs to do is make sure that people who sin know how to become rehabilitated while forgiving those who choose to be, and while also telling the offenders that the laws and punishments of God will apply to those who don't become rehabilitated.