''An eye for an eye'' is a justified policy

[LanceMcSteel]

Agree or disagree

[Franzl]

Disagree, the point of criminal justice is not to stoop to the same level as the person that committed the crime.

[Alcon]

Justified by what?

"Eye for an eye" can be externally ignorant and generally destructive, and that in and of itself is not moral to me.  The main use seems to be catharsis, which is more understandable than sadism but too little removed.

[Rild]

We should adopt the code of Hammurabi.

[Tyrion The Unbanned]

Disagree, Hammurabi's code is inhumane and completely defeats the purpose of law enforcement

[afleitch]

An eye for the eye makes the whole world blind - Gandhi

[Earth]

Disagree. I don't see this form of retribution in a legal sense as being justified by anything.

[12th Doctor]

Agree, but it doesn't mean what most people think it means.


Again, you have to view it in the context of the times.  At that time, disproportional justice was the norm throughout the world.  In 95% of all places, if you had the power to do it, it was an eye for a life, or an eye for a livelihood.  If someone killed one of your family, you would kill all of theirs.

In fact, many of the OT punishments that people now say are "cruel" were intended to limit recourse.  No more than an eye for an eye.  No more than a goat for a goat.

It's very humane and fair, especially considering the times.

[Torie]

No, eye for an eye  is a crude metric, but I do believe in the concept of retribution as a legitimate factor to include in the mix, and think retribution  cannot be wholly separated from the concept of justice.

[Matt Damon™]

We should adopt the code of Hammurabi.

Why not? It'd be significantly more liberal and humane than modern US law enforcement policies. Also, it wouldn't have the entrenched racial/urban disparities of it.

[12th Doctor]

We should adopt the code of Hammurabi.

Why not? It'd be significantly more liberal and humane than modern US law enforcement policies. Also, it wouldn't have the entrenched racial/urban disparities of it.

Are you kidding?  The punishment for 80% of all crimes was violent and usually death.

[Matt Damon™]

Given the conditions in many US prisons with widespread prisoner violence, prison rape and murder being shuffled under the rug in practice it's the case in many cases.

[The Mikado]

"Eye for an eye" is a crude way to put it, but the principle's right.  If someone poked my eye out I'd seek financial compensation equal to what the eye would have brought me later in life, compensation for any medical procedures necessary, and punitive damages.  I would NOT seek to gouge the other guy's eye out, but it amounts to the same thing in the final analysis.

[Rild]

We should adopt the code of Hammurabi.

Why not? It'd be significantly more liberal and humane than modern US law enforcement policies. Also, it wouldn't have the entrenched racial/urban disparities of it.

Yeah.

I especially like the law where if you build a house and it collapses on some schmo's family, schmo gets to kill your son.

Something along those lines.

[Scam of God]

The concept of 'an eye for an eye' is emotionally redistributive in purpose and intent, and really belies Christianity's origin as a form of 'socialism-of-the-spirit'.

Exceedingly disagreed.

[minionofmidas]

The code of Hammurabi, eh?
You'll especially love the rules along the lines of "if someone kills another man's son, one of that man's sons shall be killed". Ditto for slaves.
I am not kidding.

[Earth]

Agree, but it doesn't mean what most people think it means.


Again, you have to view it in the context of the times.  At that time, disproportional justice was the norm throughout the world.  In 95% of all places, if you had the power to do it, it was an eye for a life, or an eye for a livelihood. 

Of course, although I think the topic was simply about the concept of an "eye for an eye", regardless of it's use and historical context.

If someone killed one of your family, you would kill all of theirs.

Only somewhat true, it depends on the circumstances, but I wouldn't want this concept legislated. Meaning, the retribution would be dependent on my actions, and not through an intermediate like the state.

In fact, many of the OT punishments that people now say are "cruel" were intended to limit recourse.  No more than an eye for an eye.  No more than a goat for a goat.

It's very humane and fair, especially considering the times.

Even considering context, you can still judge the concept, and it's consequences. Excusing barbarism because it's use is relegated to "ancient history" for us is laziness.

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

No the cycle keeps going on. What we need to do is be role models for kids younger than us. And the parents need to teach them kindness while they are young. It will serve everyone well.

[Rild]

I'd like to add an addendum to the code, though; blue eyes are worth ten green eyes, green eyes are worth a hundred brown eyes

[gfev5150]

What about a guy who kills two people? Or pokes out three eyeballs?

[Associate Justice PiT]

I'd like to add an addendum to the code, though; blue eyes are worth ten green eyes, green eyes are worth a hundred brown eyes

     You forgot hazel eyes, but they can fit in right between green & brown.

[Matt Damon™]

I'd like to add an addendum to the code, though; blue eyes are worth ten green eyes, green eyes are worth a hundred brown eyes

No

[pbrower2a]

"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" was progress over the old "punish the evil-doer harder". That was valid when the legal order recognized no difference between pure accident, reckless misconduct, and deliberate evil, and when repentance was not compensation for anything.  Someone else's eye or tooth would not satisfy me. Financial compensation for harm? Sure. That's a different rule of law.

In many cases, repentance is an appropriate compensation. That holds for pure accidents and bad luck.

I find the death penalty troublesome because death is the end of the misery of someone in a hopeless situation (unless one has a firm belief that Hell is real and an imminent threat of eternal horror far worse than any prison, torture chamber, or slave system that vile people have ever created). Life without possibility of parole, life devoid of all conceivable earthly joys, would be even more of a threat to me than death itself. I figure that the BTK killer has a miserable time. 

[Franzl]

Yes, absolutely. I'd much rather be executed than spend LIFE in prison with no hope of ever being released.

At least I say that now, which might be different if I were actually confronted with a choice.