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

[StonkThis]

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?

 

[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...

 

[StonkThis]

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...

Yes, that's true, but I also mean as punishment for crimes, instead of jail time and stuff like that.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Eye for an Eye voodoo supply?

YES!

 

[grimsprice]

Its the mathematically just thing to do. But sometimes its kind of hard.

Its a better idea to just drop them off on a small island in the south pacific. (Yes, i know about Australia)

 

[Kiefer13]

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's only because people are stupid.

I like it, personally - it's equalizing.
One dude kills another dude, he deserves to die right then and there.

Completely fair.

Yeah, but what about the guy that kills that guy? And then the guy that kills him, and so on?

 

[Supernaut565]

I have to say yes for the most part any way if some one rapes another person I don't think that person should be raped I say just kill that person. I know that's not a very enlightened point of view but in the end of the day to me if you go around murdering and or raping innocent people well .... fuck you your not fit to live.

 

[A Weary Exile]

...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 agree with "An eye for an eye." for this reason and others.

Once I heard a man (On the internet) say this, in total seriousness:

"If I didn't believe in God and Hell I would go murder my neighbor and take his stuff."

That kind of thing baffles me, that people are only afraid of the consequences of what will happen to them and not what harm they cause to their fellow human beings. These people are why we have governments, we need to keep those morons in line so they don't go around stealing and murdering people wily-nilly. People need to have consequences to be afraid of or else they'd just do whatever they felt like.

 

[Dragon_of_red]

An eye for an eye makes the world go blind.

I do not believe in that.

"An ear for an ear would make the whole world blind" "How did you get that" "Well, my hat would fall over my eyes"
I had too, im sorry.

I tink it is ok, but not exactly what they got, like if it was just for robbery nothing would be done about that very often, but for murderers, rapists and other things like that, yes, they deserve it.

 

[Kuchinawa212]

I think eye for and eye is stupid. Because it just snowballs and nothing gets done
One man kills another man, should the other man be killed? Nooooo that's too easy, he should rot in jail, alone for the rest of his days going insane.
Killing won't fix killing. But a real punishment that you can't take the easy way out of is what's nessary

 

[Seasons of Bailey]

Hmm, I'm not sure. That saying, "If ye battle with monsters" comes to mind. If we start doing things like that, are we really much better than the original offender?

 

[dex-dex]

well not really i mean people should get what they have coming but not the eyeballs! how will we be able to see our glorious games?

 

[Kiefer13]

Yeah, but what about the guy that kills that guy? And then the guy that kills him, and so on?

Well, being appointed by the government to carry out executions, he is exempt from the cycle of revenge.

Anyone who tries to bring vengeance to bear against him has their entire family die horribly for continuing something that ended.

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

 

[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...

That's only because people are stupid.

I like it, personally - it's equalizing.
One dude kills another dude, he deserves to die right then and there.

Completely fair.

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.

 

[omega 616]

An eye for an eye makes the world go blind.

I do not believe in that.

Somebody has been playing mw2.

OT: wheres the fun in letting in go? It's much more fun to get even.

 

[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...

Yes, that's true, but I also mean as punishment for crimes, instead of jail time and stuff like that.

Doesn't work. Has never worked that well throughout history. Countries with the death penalty don't have lower crime rates.