I was on this page again and remembered that I had wanted to respond to this at the time. This is serious philosophical stuff now ...
...
We should all take some spare stoned moments sometime, to contemplate what a law is all about and what are its results.
In the end, after a law has been violated and the perpetrator apprehended, what has happened? The perp is given a bunch of rules about the procedure of the law and he/she is processed, etc. The penalty is fixed within a range of fines and detention - no beatings or scarring or permanent damage, no public humiliation or exile. Often the living conditions in detention are healthier and safer than the place the perp came from. The victim? ... well, still the victim, no special attention, etc. If NOT for the law, what would likely have happened? It's likely that the perp would have had some very ugly things happen to him/her. It would be swift and harsh and declarative, with no "protections" other than an intervention by any other people at the scene. The victim would have then been figuratively embraced by the community as a demonstration that "this cannot stand". It would provide a natural and nuturing human closure to the crime.
But that of course, goes very badly over time. Vigilantism is an ugly thing. No can do - can't have that chit.
However, what we forget, every time we think another law is a routinely good idea, is that the law prevents natural human interfaces, which are far more likely to produce results for the community. Laws protect the perps from retribution by the community. Laws don't protect victims because perps don't obey laws. Law should be more of a last resort than a first. Most laws end up, on balance, just screwing things up. I repeat, perps don't care about laws, while ironically, they're the ones that benefit most from laws.