My answers to the points made in the article:
1. Revenge is predominantly emotional; justice primarily rational
Justice is unemotional because it is being carried out by a third party. If someone seeking revenge hires a hit man then the hit man can be unemotional too. The government is simply acting as the public’s hit man.
2. Revenge is, by nature, personal; justice is impersonal, impartial, and both a social and legal phenomenon. For personal vs impersonal, see (1) above. It is true that justice is social and legal and impartial, but only because the revenge has been codified into law. Legal is not the same as ethical.
3. Revenge is an act of vindictiveness; justice, of vindication. Semantic games anyone? The article actually states, Two wrongs do not make a right and (ethically speaking) never can. My point exactly.
4. Revenge is about cycles; justice about closure. Only because the government shuts down any possible retaliation.
5. Revenge is about retaliation; justice about restoring balance. More semantics. What balance is being restored by giving someone the death penalty, or even just life imprisonment?
Some quotes that were used that I don’t think bolster their case.
“Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both.” —Eleanor Roosevelt
How does the death penalty serve both sides?
“All calls for justice require that victims feel avenged, and revenge is never just if it’s disproportionate.” — Thane Rosenbaum
So it all comes down to whether the revenge is proportional. Eye for an eye?