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

[Hurr Durr Derp]

"An eye for an eye" is a justification for revenge, but revenge is not just.

 

[likalaruku]

I would prefur an eye for an eye instead of sueing. But in cases of murder, the punishment can't be approximate.

You total a man's car, he totals yours.
Someone breaks into your house & steals shit, you get to do that to his place.
You kidnap a man's kid, your kids have tostay with him until you can pay a ransom.
A man kills your daughter, you get to be the one to publicly electrocute/hang/poison him.
You pirate software, you have to sell their stuff for 4 hours every Saturday for no pay.
A man runs over your cat, you get to back your car over his foot & not pay his hospital bill.

 

[Dopi]

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

I don't care wether or not it makes the world blind. Im not a pacifist. I've experienced too much cruelty. If anyone would beat up, or kill, anyone in my family or anyone of my close friends; I'd hunt them down and let them taste a bit of justice.

 

[DemonicVixen]

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 know it's not exactly a great theory.

Utter nonsence. Since when has this world cared about this saying. People kill or harm others in some way without thinking twice that there could be a relative or friend or fate whom might come and get them back for it. Personally i only half like the idea. If someone was to harm someone i loved i would seek revenge. Not murder but some other harm that would make them suffer. But then again, say for example in the future i had a child and someone killed/harmed that child. If they had children i would be highly tempted to seek revenge by taking the life or at least torturing their child (only if they killed/harmed mine with intent). Yes some could argue that it wasn't their child's fault so why take it out on them however, if you think about it, what fault did my child have to deserve to be killed/harmed?

I remember reading about that boy who raped a child but the child's parents forgave him coz they were Christians. Ok, so i wouldn't rape him but i certainly wouldn't have let him get away with it. Especially as he went out and did it again (thought they wern't to know that). Either way, i would have been seeking revenge in some form for the pain he would have inflicted uopn that child both mentally and physically. Rape wouldn't be in my books. Im not that sick but certainly some form of punishment along with jail that would hurt him for the rest of his life.

this spoiler contains a video that is not for young viewing. It is of the saw 3 movie trap (The Rack aka the Twisting Crucifix). I have picked this clip due to the reason behind this particular trap and what happens at the end of the clip. I beg you not to watch if you have a weak stomach as this video is sick and grosome. Please don't kill me for putting it on here, i am trying to make it protected in the only way i can. I trust members to watch at their own risk.

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6po3ghM3Ww The victim hit a guy's son and now the guy has to choose whether or not to save his life.

this is another example of "eye for an eye" and eventually the person gives in, all too late though.

 

[Robby Foxfur]

On the topic of an eye for an eye, do you think it's right, or wrong? Why or why not? Giving an example, a man tortures another man before killing him, should he be sentenced to jail, or given the same fate that he gave the other man? The main argument against eye for an eye is "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" said by Ghandi, 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 know it's not exactly a great theory.

What do you have to say? Your opinions, etc., extensive explanations.

EDIT: Where the hell are the extensive explanations?

I must agree with ghandi on this one, if you hold it to the absolute, which is how Hammurabi used this code, then if you accidentally put someones eye out then you in ture must do the same to your self. I realize you don't mean it in this sense, but that is what an eye for an eye is used for.

As for a system like this in law i'm all for it but more of everything has a value, 1 life is equal to 1 life, but not in the sense that both must be dead, however if you exceed the limit and its is proven then you don't wait on death row they shoot you right in court, (sure would make jury duty more exciting). Again terrible acts wouldn't be, like rape = you get raped but rather you do it twice, castration (chemicaly), 3 time and well you have exceeded your worth a a person and bam dead. its almost like math, its not to say jail wouldn't be needed but rather instead of imprisoning 2 time murders you just shoot them, so jails would be less full. this is just a bases thought i have had when it comes to seeing serial killers sentenced to life in imprison.

Oh and the we can't kill him cause he is insane bullshit has to go, if he is a threat to people lives you remove the threat you don't lock it up where he might be able to escape and or kill someone else.

 

[Captain Blackout]

Well, I could argue morality (though that would be futile, I imagine) but I can't fault your effeciency.

It would be.
I hate people who fuck with a perfect system.

But the person who killed that dude also killed a dude.

In the eyes of SOMEBODY, he also deserves to die.

There is the problem, and this is why "an eye for an eye" never works in practice as a deterrent for anything.

A dude who was sanctioned by the government.

Again: He is immune to the cycle of revenge. Once he punishes whoever fucked up, it's over.
Anyone who makes any attempt to continue the fight will die along with all of their immediate family.

Brutality works if you'll let it.

I'm pretty sure this was the thinking of the best of the Mafia's. Govt. can never pull that crap off right, takes WELL-organized crime to pull it off.

 

[Crystal Cuckoo]

It should be more than an eye for an eye, as the person who took said first eye made the first move, and thus was probably being a dick (and cause trauma and other unwanted grief later in life.)

[I'm joking. Just btw.]

 

[Hexenwolf]

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...

Bullshit. It might be perpetuating* gang wars, but it sure as hell isn't starting them. What is starting them is escalation. Dumb-ass gangsters with overinflated (and fragile) egos that are willing to knock an old lady's teeth out because she bumped into him.

Just felt the need to say that.

Next up, this expression is almost universally misunderstood. It is not, I repeat, not a call for revenge. It is a call for equality. People need to understand it's origin to realize that. In ancient times, if a peasant caused a rich person to lose sight in one eye, it was more than common that that peasant would be put to death as punishment. The first appearance of this statement is in Hammurabi's Code, one of the first sets of laws. The idea is often referred to by historian's as the law of equivalency because it requires a punishment equal to the crime; it was an attempt to limit the extent of a punishment and to discourage cruelty.

Now it is often used by people as a cry for vengeance, which is what inspired Ghandi's famous quote. But it's not about vengeance, and using it as such goes completely against the original spirit.

Just a pet peeve of mine.

As for whether it should be applied to our current legal system, I don't think it should. I actually like our current legal system because it is case by case. Killing someone doesn't automatically carry a death sentence: whether or not it was premeditated, if it was accidental, if it was a crime of passion, these things are all taken into consideration. I do think that certain things should carry a death penalty, like if someone plans for three months and carries out a murder spree, then hell yes. But things like manslaughter, where it's accidental, no. Besides, applying "an eye for an eye" to everything would make for some really awkward punishments for certain crimes. What about rape?

Is that an extensive enough explanation for ya?

*Actually, it doesn't even perpetuate gang wars, now that I think about it. They do what you said because they're retarded, not because the follow the idea of an eye for an eye. If they did then this would happen: Gang A kills one member of Gang B. Gang B kills one member of Gang A. And then they would stop, because the retribution is equal. Obviously that's not what happens, but that's just my point. They don't follow the idea "an eye for an eye," they follow the idea "I think he insulted me! Let's repay it ten times worse!" which is only the exact opposite.

 

[bluemistake2]

Hmm... an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind makes me think of alfred the great's laws the one were for example your neighbor murdered you son you would be aloud to kill him after 7 days it makes sense and it would work in the olden days but nowadays i think people do deserve justice, the guilty be prosecuted and the victim be aloud to shag the guilty.

 

[MelziGurl]

I don't like the whole "eye for an eye" solution. For example: If someone commits murder, I like the idea of them slowing rotting in jail rather than say a lethal injection. To me, it just seems like the criminal is getting out of his punishment rather than serving it.

 

[HotFezz8]

no. religious stupidness.

 

[Byere]

Personally, I believe in the concept on "an eye for an eye", though not always the method.
If you rape someone, I don't believe you should be raped... simplly for the fact that they might enjoy it. Castration by salad fork would be more appropriate.
"The punishment should fit the crime", would be moreso how I see things.

 

[Zac_Dai]

Compare the prosperity of nations who have a deep rooted "eye for an eye" culture with nations with a strong justice system.

You'll find your answer.

 

[shuza]

it's a good idea fundamentally, but impossible to use fairly because of social classes, etc.

 

[cantdoright]

I don't like the whole "eye for an eye" solution. For example: If someone commits murder, I like the idea of them slowing rotting in jail rather than say a lethal injection. To me, it just seems like the criminal is getting out of his punishment rather than serving it.

Well with 3 meals a day, dental care, and health care most jailed people in america have it better off in jail then a homeless man. Which is why some homeless people break windows of stores to get in jail when life is really bad for them. Of course there is the chance of rape in jail.

 

[MelziGurl]

I don't like the whole "eye for an eye" solution. For example: If someone commits murder, I like the idea of them slowing rotting in jail rather than say a lethal injection. To me, it just seems like the criminal is getting out of his punishment rather than serving it.

Well with 3 meals a day, dental care, and health care most jailed people in america have it better off in jail then a homeless man. Which is why some homeless people break windows of stores to get in jail when life is really bad for them. Of course there is the chance of rape in jail.

Aside from meals and dental care, would you wanna live life in jail for life? I'd take homeless anyday, at least you are free.