[25% down the page] In any case, is vengeance necessarily a bad thing?
The Victorian legal philosopher James Fitzjames Stephens [in Liberty, Equality, Fraternity] thought vengeance was an acceptable justification for punishment. Punishment, he thought, should be inflicted:
1. for the sake of ratifying the feeling of hatred − call it revenge, resentment, or what you will − which the contemplation of such [offensive] conduct excites[,] in healthily constituted minds.
Would someone please explain which? What's this phenomenon called?
How does the above differ from the only way in which I could interpret this quote, by removing which:
2. for the sake of ratifying the feeling of hatred − call it revenge, resentment, or what you will. The contemplation of such [offensive] conduct excites in healthily constituted minds.
But 2 sounds wrong, because excite is a transitive verb (so 'excite in' is unreasoning)?
Update: I inserted a comma after 'excite', if this shos that 'which ... excites' is the relative clause?