Poll: Eye for an eye, what do you think?

[Lamppenkeyboard]

I can't answer the poll, since I want to go for middle ground. If two drunk guys get in a fight or something happens along those lines, culminating in one guy being killed, the other should go to jail.

A father murders his wife and children, then you are full of shit if you say he should live.

I was just assuming though that this poll is mainly about murderers, since that seems to almost always be the case with legal posts. That of censorship.

 

[crudus]

People are so closed minded on the possibilities "eye for an eye" it just makes the point moot. If someone hits you in the teeth and he then proceed to get hit by a bus, enters a coma for 6 months and wakes up to his family dead I would call that fair. Whereas a lot of people would still demand blood. There is such a thing as poetic justice but people never take that into account.

It's stupid. It's how gang wars start and never end.

Person X kills person Y so person Z kills person X for killing person Y, then person A kills person Z because he was friends with Y, etc etc etc...

That used to be legal here in the US too

 

[cantdoright]

I was reading this and then looked at my dog and wondered. Why have we never seen this behavior in animals? The excuse that they cannot communicate or are just not evolved as us does not cut it for me. Why? Because if a gorilla's baby is killed she obviously is fond of it and does not want it to have died, but will she get revenge on the predator? And if she does the cycle stops there, because the predator?s cousin or bother or friend does not come and kill the mother gorilla.

* * *

Is there a way this could work for humans? I have spent an hour trying to think up a solution and I just don't know one. Is our close connections with other people prevent us from living a life that is human and stills allows us to move on in life without having a never ending killing spree? Hmm... I have stumped myself and I?m going to bed before I get any more confused.

Good night and thanks for reading my ideas.

 

[Levitas1234]

why not?

 

[Margrave Rinstock]

It is Really Dependent on the Situation. If a Man Killed say, my mother, I would not want his Mother killed.

However, I sure as hell want to see HIM decapitated.

 

[OneBig Man]

An eye for an eye makes the world go blind.

I do not believe in that.

Of coarse, they will still have another eye.

 

[tthor]

An eye for an eye and the world is blind.

But I would agree to a form of retaliation, but violence isn't always the answer. It depends entirely on the situation.

but if the crime is violence, wouldn't violence be a fitting punishment?

and if the crime were rape.. the perp would be... raped?

And if he broke copyright laws.. we'd...we'd copy stuff he made

I'd say it would depend on the crime exactly, the exact specifics. Violent crime is a very broad term, manslaughter of 1 person from negligence is different to the murders of 5 ppl which was pre-mediated.

Certainly crimes such as the latter would be worthy perhaps of death penalty.

lol you make a good point

 

[TailsRodrigez]

Forgiveness, the hardest thing i have seen people try to do, is what can truly solve a conflict.

 

[Mozared]

but I think it would reduce crime, because when someone thinks about the consequences of what they do, and how it will bite them in the ass, maybe they'll think twice about rape or murder. An eye for an eye, it'll make you want to keep your eye. You'll be scared of the consequences, so you'll most likely not do it.

I'm guessing this has already been said, but this is how mankind has been thinking for the past 3000 years. There is still crime. It does not work.

To be honest, I doubt we'd suddenly see a huge increase in criminal activity if we decided to close down all prisons - most people who end up there would have committed their crime regardless, and most people who currently do not commit crimes do so because of their conscience. Of course, there's people "on the edge", but that number probably isn't too large.

In the end, the sad reality is that I too strife for ultimate justice and equality even though I know it A) generally serves no further purpose than to soothe my conscience and B) is probably in straight contradiction with the evolution/survival of the fittest idea believe in. Technically seen, justice is unbelievably hypocritical and in itself - we try to do what we think 'is best' to uphold justice on small scale without realizing that on larger scale all of us daily survive and wallow in luxury because of injustice.

 

[R Man]

Eye for an Eye debates say more about modern concepts of justice than they do about Ancient ones.

First of all, and Eye for an Eye was about limiting revenge, not encouraging it. It meant that punishments fit the crime, so if you poke out my eye, I'm not allowed to murder your whole family.

Next there is no reason to believe that this has to be taken literally. For example, if I take an 'eye' which prevents them from working, perhaps a punishment might be compensation for work lost, which we have today. The misunderstanding about the idea is based on the false belief that Ancient people were stupid and literal.

And why does an eye for an eye suddenly eliminate trials? It doesn't have to do that. Trials and the right of appeal, representation etc. are independent of an eye for an eye.

And is an eye for an eye barbaric, when locking people up in cramped overcrowded cells to be beaten and raped is not?

I think alot of this comes down to a belief that justice is a real thing. It is not, its an abstract, and poorly defined concept. So why do we punish (ideological arguments aside)? Firstly, we punish to discourage people from offending. Of course some people would offend anyway which is the second reason we punish, to remove these individuals from society. The third is to show solidarity and support for the victim(s). The last is as an organizing principle of society. (there may be more but I can't think of any at this point)

Obviously these can be abused, but so can anything.

 

[SonicKoala]

From a strictly logical standpoint, this is the right thing to do. I think it's fair, and to argue against this is to bring in abstract concepts of morality and justice.

 

[Azraellod]

I do not believe in the retribution system of justice. While on principle I rather like the idea, it kind of goes out the window when it comes to certain situations.

For example, say someone were to steal something, then break it. This person has no possessions. What do you do to him?

This question has no correct answer because there will be so many different opinions on the matter.

Besides, it struck me as something like the deterrent system of justice, and if you want to avoid prosecuting a few innocents, that's definitely not going to work.

I like to focus on the other two principles of justice, protection and reformation.

 

[The Heik]

Well consider the social contract: if you break a law then you are consenting to it being done to you

Anyway an eye for an eye leaves everyone wearing a wicked eyepatch!

 

[Caligulove]

The better person does the difficult thing, and doesnt just repeat what happened upon him/her

 

[fender]

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.
- Martin Luther King


Seriously, that pretty much explains my point of view on it.

 

[zombflux]

Only if my eye is the second eye.

*

 

[King CoN]

I definately agree with an eye for an eye.

The UK Justice system is a fucking joke. Take Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi for example, convicted of the Lockerbie bombing but still allowed out early to go home to a hero's welcome. Bastard should have been hung.

In general though the UK needs to toughen up the laws and sentences.

However with Capital Punishment the courts need to be 100% sure they have the correct person.

 

[sumanoskae]

It's only fair

 

[Allan53]

I tend to take a hard-line justice approach. The idea of "well, that means we will all devolve to the lowest common denominator" is misinformed. If someone KNOWS they will be killed for killing someone, I'm pretty sure the rate would drop precipitously.

Those who are going to post "studies have shown the death penalty don't have lower crime rates": Those studies are flawed.

1. The death penalty is usually far from certain, to the point of being quite unlikely.

2. The states (usually these studies are done in the US) that do have it (and actually use it) tend to be inconsistent as to when they do use it.

Just part of the pathologicalisation of criminality. "They aren't bad, they had a bad childhood".