Many people say that others do very bad deeds and 'get away with it'. This infers that if someone does a bad deed, they escape any retribution or any bad feelings regarding what they have done.

Can someone really feel relaxed and untroubled while killing someone? We see it in the movies, but is this realistic? It seems like a mechanism to scare the audience more than a reflection of what a murderer would be like in real life.

If the murderer is naturally relaxed and calm, why would they need to murder people? - They would be too comfortable to bother, would they not? Or maybe you think they would be agitated before beginning to murder, but then feeling of murdering somehow calms them? If they can only be calm when murdering, then their life outside of that must be pretty hellish. And if they can't be calm and relaxed while murdering, then their life must be pretty hellish also.

The point is that murdering someone - blood spurting, screams, emotional trauma, death throes, etc. - isn't this equated with hell? A person appears to create a hell for themselves to live in when doing bad deeds - is this not as deep as retribution can go?

For example; why would a masochistic arsonist not want to go to hell? It sounds like the perfect place for him. His hell would possibly be Heaven. This idea that there is some place or act which will deliver retribution to those who do bad deeds seems to be illogical. No one can do anything bad to someone who does bad things to themselves. People say to criminals "Don't do this to yourself!", and yet the crinimal does the bad thing. Why does anyone think doing more will someone set the balance straight?

It's like sentencing a suicidal person to death for wanting to take their own life. What does that achieve