"It is also a fact that the Talmud was not developed until centuries, perhaps as much as a thousand years, after the Mosaic Law. You can interpret the Law in the light of the Talmud, if you wish. I suspect that the Talmud often attempts to circumvent the pretty clear language of the Law. "
Not according to Orthodox beliefs. The Talmud is the written codification of the Oral, what you call Mosaic, Law. Oral Law was handed down at Sinai together with the written law. It has the same force as the written law and the written law can not be understood without it. The Oral and written law are integral and the word of God. That is the core belief of Orthodox Jews.
"For instance, the conversion of all penalties for crimes against persons into monetary penalties would certainly be very much in the interests of the wealthy, who often had great influence among the rabbis, at least according to one Jesus of Nazareth."
It is widely misunderstood that the wealthy Jews were the legalistic Pharisees. In fact there were two groups. The Saducees were the wealthy High Priests who had adopted Roman ways. The Pharisees were not wealthy but were observers of the Oral Law considered legalistic (a derisive term as applied by Christians). The surviving Jews of today are descendants of Pharisees.
Crimes are crimes and torts are civil even where people are injured. Our legal system rightly considers the intent or the accidental nature of acts. I never meant to suggest that there are no criminal peanlties under Jewish law. An eye for an eye arises in the non-criminal context.
Even in crime some outcomes are accidental and can not be fairly attributed to intentional acts deserving of severe criminal penalties. An exception to this would be the felony murder rule. However even there "the felony must present a forseeable danger to life, and the link between the underlying felony and the death must not be too remote. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder
"This inherently means wealthy persons could commit crimes with essential impunity."
The same applies to criminal trials today where OJ can pay for an array of lawyers to get him off. I am not in favor of widespread use of the death penalty although I am not opposed to all use of it.
I see the goal of the criminal justice system as one of keeping criminals, especially violent ones, off the street. I would treat rescidivists very harshly.
Then my reading of the Law must have missed these other criminal penalties. Where are they found? The Jews, and other ancient peoples, had nothing resembling our long-term imprisonment. So what form of punishment did they use, if the eye for an eye principle was not used?
I realize that Orthodox Jews view the Talmud as of similar authority with the Law. I do not, however, agree with them.
I am well aware of the origin of the Pharisees as the "liberals" (in the original sense of the word) of Jesus' day. The Saducees and several other sects of the time disappeared in the great revolt against the Romans and its aftermath. However, Jesus does not appear to have a much higher opinion of the Pharisees of his day than he did of the Saducees.
That OJ and other rich, famous people can manipulate the legal system to be acquitted is very different from a legal system where the punishment, if convicted, consists solely of the equivalent of a fine. I think this argument is sophistic.
The ancient Germans had such a system. Each person had their wereguild (?), or price for murder or injury. It varied by station in life. Rich men could commit a crime and pay the same fine for it as a poor man. (If even convicted.)
You are the very first person I have ever run across who appears to claim that having purely monetary penalties for crime is a morally superior system. The immorality of it can be seen by the idiocy of today's sports commissions who "punish" a player earning $20M/year by fining him $5000.