 <ICLE-FIN-JOEN-0022.1> 
Our starting point is that punishment is totally related to power. This is a basic principle. In the so-called primitive societies, which have no written laws, the chief (or whatever whatever his name: a chieftain of a tribe, a priest, a warlord, a king etc.) has the right to punish whoever breaks a rule obeyed by the rest of his subjects. The rule may be settled by earlier generations, but it may as well be imposed by the sole will of the chief. So, in these "totalitarian" societies, a person who is opposed to the will of the chief will be punished. It is to be noted that the will and the punishment are often arbitrary, because the sole purpose of the chief is to maintain his power. Consequently, the law is arbitrary, too .
In more "civilised" societies, it is the chief (a king, a rajah etc.) who makes the laws or who has the laws drawn up. Basically, the laws derive from the chief's will, but punishments are no longer arbitrary, since laws have been written down, and it takes a more or less long procedure to change them. Thus, the lawbreaker is no longer punished arbitrarily, but, of course, the lawmaker can interpret his laws at will .
In democratic societies, the relation of punishment to power is more distant and more abstract, but nevertheless, it is there. If the tripartition of power is observed, the head of State has only the executive power, he has no more the right to make laws, nor to prescribe punishments, those are the tasks of other institutions. Of course, the head of State most often has a right to make bills and a right of veto, that is, a right to accept or reject bills. In addition, he has a right to grant or not to grant amnesty .
That is to say that power is no longer the sole property of one person, it is institutionalised. The system punishes whoever breaks its rules or laws which are no longer dictated by "a chief" but have been compiled generation after generation into a national treasury .
In modern societies, the laws, especially the criminal laws, include punishments which fall on the violator. Laws and punishments are no longer arbitrary, that is, dependent on the sole will of the chief, the consequence of which is that laws should be the same for everybody. It is society, through courts, judges and the police, which has assumed the power of punishing the violators of its codes .
Even in democratic societies, power protects itself. The basic principle holds true. A brilliant example of this is the impunity of the lawmakers (or whatever they are called: deputies, congressmenn or Members of Parliament). It is made extremely difficult to prosecute a lawmaker or a head of State whatever they may have committed. Long procedures and special courts are required to convict them. In Italy, the impunity of a deputy has to be removed first before putting him on trial, and that decision is made by the Diet only. Normally, lawmakers are not put on trial at all, they are just told they no longer enjoy the confidence of the Diet (or the Parliament or the Congress) and they are forced to resign. It is like they did not commit an offence at all, just a mistake. Could you have imagined President Kekkonen on trial? Never! And why didn't they put Mr Juhantalo in pretrial custody?
Different societies have different traditions. They are based on different ideologies, philosophies, religions and values. Are they compatible, are their legislations compatible? In the case of Michael Fay, it is a question of power, again. Undoubtedly, Michael was conscious of committing a minor dismeanour when he was spraying the car, but I doubt he knew about the severe punishment he was to suffer for an offence that would pass unnoticed in most parts of the USA.
The Singaporean government considered its legal right to punish an offender according to its own laws, whereas the US. Government considered it was within its power to try to impose its own laws on Singapore when an American citizen was involved. To a Westerner, caning seems far too exaggerated a punishment for a minor vandalism, but what is there to say about capital punishment? Most Western societies don't approve it, but they are not powerful enough to object to America where this extreme punishment is being given in a number of States .
Laws and punishments reflect the traditions and values of a society. You are not allowed to possess alcohol in Saudi-Arabia, while hardly anyone pays attention to you if you are drunk in Russia. You are not allowed to profess a religion at school in France, whereas religion is everywhere, especially at school, in Iraq. Prostitution is legal in Holland, while having many wives is a rule in Jemen. Not to say anything of such issues as divorce or abortion. You had better be aware of the basic rules and traditions before you go to a country!
In my opinion, in totalitarian societies, punishment is a way of maintaining power, it is a measure to suppress one's adversaries and to show one's power. It is less about teaching a lesson to the rest of the subjects .
In democratic societies, the situation is quite the opposite: punishment is a lesson taught to the rest of the citizens. It is a lesson about the rules and the regulations that control society. I don't think the actual offender gains much from this lesson because, in most cases, he knows in advance it is a crime he is committing. Especially imprisonment brings nothing but bitterness about. Let alone capital punishment which acts as a deterrent. Remorse or penance of the person who has been sentenced to death have no meaning any more. It is the threat of a punishment that prevents us from committing felonies and offences .
