The aspect of Sharia law most commonly quoted in the US is "eye for an eye." Is the US law very different from this? Take the following principle of US criminal justice system.
Five major purposes of punishment in the US are: rehabilitation, incapacitation, deterrence, denunciation and retribution.
Retribution is to give defendants their "just desserts" by imposing penalties directly proportional to the seriousness of the offense and the offender's blameworthiness. Is this not the same as the version of Sharia quoted earlier?
There is a difference, however. In the US, there are lots of restrictions around this retribution. For example, there are upper and lower bounds. Punishment is further scaled by what is needed to achieve crime prevention goals. Judges are also required to take into consideration, other requirements, e.g. no cruel or inhumane punishments, attempting to promote victim-offender reconciliation etc.
You be the judge - if US laws are substantially different from Sharia, or basically the same.
I contend that US laws are Sharia with some exceptions. And, while those exceptions make a world of difference, the underlying prinicples are the same. It is possible that some "strict constructionist" judge can start interpreting US laws to be much closer to Sharia.
