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

[lwm3398]

If you kill, you should be killed. Simple. I don't give a shit about motives or reasons or whatever the hell excuse you have, you die for killing. You've proven to be a threat to society and a failed human being, and, frankly, you can get the fuck out of my gene-pool.

Also, you should die for raping. Rapists, too, have proven to be a failure as a human, a threat to society, that whole lot. You can blame it on bad parenting or whatever, but at the end of the day, you're a horrible person and need to die.

That's just the way it should be. We don't need to throw them in jail, that's just stupid. Even a life sentence let's them live in prison so we, law-abiding citizens, have to pay for their living. No. Rapists and murderers should be killed.

As for armed robbers, jail with a chance to get out on good behavior.

Assisted suicide should not be punished by law. The consent of the victim was taken into mind and the person doing it probably tried to stop the person asking them to stop or by getting them therapy. It might be killing, but it's not killing for your benefit, it's killing for the other person.

Oh, and if assisted suicide is punishable by law, you shouldn't be allowed to put a dog down, as dogs are usually "Sick" when they are killed, just as a human would be "Mentally Sick" to commit suicide or be 'Put down' so to speak. It's just putting them out of their misery, helping them.

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

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...

Not necissarily. X kills Y. Z kills X. The scales are even.

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

If you kill, you should be killed. Simple. I don't give a shit about motives or reasons or whatever the hell excuse you have, you die for killing. You've proven to be a threat to society and a failed human being, and, frankly, you can get the fuck out of my gene-pool.

Also, you should die for raping. Rapists, too, have proven to be a failure as a human, a threat to society, that whole lot. You can blame it on bad parenting or whatever, but at the end of the day, you're a horrible person and need to die.

That's just the way it should be. We don't need to throw them in jail, that's just stupid. Even a life sentence let's them live in prison so we, law-abiding citizens, have to pay for their living. No. Rapists and murderers should be killed.

As for armed robbers, jail with a chance to get out on good behavior.

Assisted suicide should not be punished by law. The consent of the victim was taken into mind and the person doing it probably tried to stop the person asking them to stop or by getting them therapy. It might be killing, but it's not killing for your benefit, it's killing for the other person.

Oh, and if assisted suicide is punishable by law, you shouldn't be allowed to put a dog down, as dogs are usually "Sick" when they are killed, just as a human would be "Mentally Sick" to commit suicide or be 'Put down' so to speak. It's just putting them out of their misery, helping them.

We share the same view on capital punnishment I have noticed.

 

[funguy2121]

So what's your point?
The dude said that harsh consequences would refrain people from committing crimes, I told him why I think he's wrong. So, again, where are you getting at?
And LOL at the "subtle" use of the word "stiffer" in the same sentence as "child molester".

Yeah, sorry, had to let my inner geek out on that one. Love the lowbrow humor, especially the obvious.

While I agree that we aren't doing a fantastic job of deferring criminals (I live in Texas, where we are, if I'm correct, right behind China in the number of people we put to death each year), the main reason that the jails are overflowing is the drug problem and the government's captalizin--er, I mean handling, of it.

We also kill more children than any other democracy. I mean try a teen or younger as an adult and then kill that person as soon as he/she reaches 18.

Okay, rambling over: what I'm getting at is that the widespread violence across the U.S. is due to an environment that fosters violence. Outdated ideas about how to deal with offenders are actually creating more of them.

And no, I do not know how to be succint.

Here is a picture of Tim Curry in drag.

 

[FolkLikePanda]

To me eye and something else for an eye, if someone does something to you, you do it back twice as much.

 

[Necrofudge]

Well since technically "an eye for an eye" is a call for fairness, not revenge... Sure why not. If you feel you need to set your neighbor on fire, let the same be done to you.

 

[lwm3398]

We share the same view on capital punnishment I have noticed.

I always thought I had unpopular opinions, but yes, yes we do.

 

[funguy2121]

Fucking pacifists.

Yeah, those damned peaceniks with their "love" and their protests and there occasional ability to bring the world to its next stage of freedom and civil liberties (Gandhi, King, Mandela), and their superior abilities as lovers, and their far stronger musical abilities, and their ability to see flaws in themselves as well as others...man, what asshats!

 

[manaman]

Seems most are confused about eye for an eye and the punishment fitting the crime.

I don't think a society we should resort to the barbaric practices that we are trying to prevent, how does forcing someone to torture someone because that person tortured another person solve anything? The torturer should be appropriatly punished and, at the same time I think prisioners should be used to enrich society, they should be forced into education programs, and forced to work while in jail.

I once proposed a system for a school project where the prisoners where given not a sentence in years, but one in money. The prisoner would be able to earn extra money in prison by doing constructive things, staying out of trouble, taking classes, and they would have to spend at least eight hours each day working. While in prison a housing cost would be charged aginst them each day, refuse to work, cooperate, or continue to commit crimes or the like, and they will stay in prison indefinably.

In this way you keep the prisoners occupied, give them incentives to better themselves, and force themselves to partially pay for their imprisonment. The prisoner would only be able to keep a tiny amount of money they earned (so they have some money upon leaving prison) the rest would be evenly split to pay down the cost of keeping them in prison, and the to pay down their sentence. As soon as they no longer owe money on the sentence they are freed.

Upon being free the extra money earned can be turned over to them, so they can support themselves during the initial period of transition. They can also apply the skills learned in prison to a job upon leaving. Making rehabilitation that much more likely.

There are major flaws in the system, but I figured it would be more likely to help those that can be helped, and leave the rest to rot.

 

[lwm3398]

To me eye and something else for an eye, if someone does something to you, you do it back twice as much.

Yeah, that usually gets them to stop. Like killing a rapist, or torturing then killing a murderer. Let's people know you don't fucking DO that.

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

We share the same view on capital punnishment I have noticed.

I always thought I had unpopular opinions, but yes, yes we do.

What should be done isn't always pretty, I suppose. See and it's dumb when people argue against it because it's like "If you havn't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear."

 

[ReSpawn]

Quite aside from issues of morality or practicality, using capital punishment (that is what your getting at? I can't imagine the thread was started with public indecency in mind...so to speak) would imply the justice system be infallible.

There are few absolutes in the world, or things we can all agree on at least, and one of them is that this life will end. I suppose we're all in line to find out about the absoluteness of death, but that'll have to wait for now.

To deliver a punishment as final as this, we would require a standard of evidence to match, one that we simply can't.

 

[Oldmanwillow]

If you believe in the eye makes the world blind theory; Why would you want to live in a world where only evil can see?

I am in all support for an eye for an eye system. The problem with this theory is that people will protect even the guilty if they are a loved one. If I had a son or daughter and they committed a terrible crime, I would ask to be the one to kill them. We need to send a message that all human action has consequences, not if you love someone its your duty to blindly protect them from the consequences of their actions.

The problem isnt fairness it emotional attachment. If we as a people could finally get over this primitive response, we could drastically change for the better. Over all more emotion bad logic good.

Even with smaller cases of eye for an eye I've never seen it end well, for anyone. I can imagine what a world living by this theory would turn out like. As one person said, it's basically how gangsters live and another pointed:

Guy kills police officer
Police officers torture him
He's released and goes on to kill 4 more because of it.

I don't want to live in a world that lives by that type of justice. 2 wrongs DO NOT make a right and anyone that belives this is a fool.

If you cant do an action to your self them you cannot do that action to others. Its a simple yet fairest from of morality.

If guy kills a Police officer he shouldn't be tortured he should be killed as quickly as possible.

The retailing party is never in the wrong because when the intentional act took place the offender forfeited his right to be protected from that action. By doing said action is was approving the same said action to happen to him/her.

All human action has consequence, By saying that we shouldnt have an eye for an eye take away the fairest consequences for any given action.

This uses the basic idea of the nuke. Guess what the nuke has created more peace in the world than any other object. Think about there hasnt been two countries with nuclear capabilities that has gone to war with each other. Why? fear. the only emotion that always gives a predictable response. If you no doing said action could end your life; why would you do said action.

An eye for an eye makes the world blind. Why would you want to live in a world where only the evil can see?

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

It works wonderfully if human judgement is 100% fair and 100% accurate. Anyone else spotted the problem?

 

[BonsaiK]

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...

Not necissarily. X kills Y. Z kills X. The scales are even.

That's not the way it works in practice. X always has friends who resent Z for killing X.

 

[Deacon Cole]

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.

This logic does not bear out in reality. If it did, then jail time or capitol punishment would be sufficient deterrent, wouldn't it? But it isn't because people either do not think of the potential consequences or figure they can get away with it.

 

[MelziGurl]

If you believe in the eye makes the world blind theory; Why would you want to live in a world where only evil can see?

I am in all support for an eye for an eye system. The problem with this theory is that people will protect even the guilty if they are a loved one. If I had a son or daughter and they committed a terrible crime, I would ask to be the one to kill them. We need to send a message that all human action has consequences, not if you love someone its your duty to blindly protect them from the consequences of their actions.

The problem isnt fairness it emotional attachment. If we as a people could finally get over this primitive response, we could drastically change for the better. Over all more emotion bad logic good.

Even with smaller cases of eye for an eye I've never seen it end well, for anyone. I can imagine what a world living by this theory would turn out like. As one person said, it's basically how gangsters live and another pointed:

Guy kills police officer
Police officers torture him
He's released and goes on to kill 4 more because of it.

I don't want to live in a world that lives by that type of justice. 2 wrongs DO NOT make a right and anyone that belives this is a fool.

If you cant do an action to your self them you cannot do that action to others. Its a simple yet fairest from of morality.

If guy kills a Police officer he shouldn't be tortured he should be killed as quickly as possible.

The retailing party is never in the wrong because when the intentional act took place the offender forfeited his right to be protected from that action. By doing said action is was approving the same said action to happen to him/her.

All human action has consequence, By saying that we shouldnt have an eye for an eye take away the fairest consequences for any given action.

This uses the basic idea of the nuke. Guess what the nuke has created more peace in the world than any other object. Think about there hasnt been two countries with nuclear capabilities that has gone to war with each other. Why? fear. the only emotion that always gives a predictable response. If you no doing said action could end your life; why would you do said action.

An eye for an eye makes the world blind. Why would you want to live in a world where only the evil can see?

If the world is blind, then how can evil see? Also, life isn't meant to be fair.

I don't need elaborate more on my views, we will never see eye to eye on it so we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Agayek]

I am firmly of the opinion that the Eye for an Eye principle should apply in punishments for violent crime.

That said, I am vehemently against the current system of capital punishment. As it stands, it takes decades for people to go from convicted -> dead. Ideally, each case gets 2 appeals. If all three find the defendant guilty, the victim (or government appointed representative if the victim is incapable) drags the son of a ***** out of the court and blows their head off right outside the courtroom. Preferably while being broadcast on national television.

The stupid bullshit with lethal injections and the "humane" crap they use for the most part nowadays, always done behind closed doors and with basically no publicity just isn't the way to do it. I just don't like the inherent lie involved in it.