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

[UsefulPlayer 1]

I don't believe in an "eye for an eye," I mean think about the "You killed my wife and now I get to kill your wife" idea back in the old days. Plus under that idea you can stab me all you want so long as I get to stab you back.

But some punishment for some criminals really should be more severe. I mean you just know when you release inmates that are probably gonna be back in the next day.

 

[ma55ter_fett]

Also if someone wrongs you or someone you love there must be justice, and if no one else takes up the cause then it is up to you to become the hammer of god. I mean your not just going to take it like a prison ***** are you?

It's human nature to get even, we were built this way as were all higher life forms. Why do you think vengence tastes so sweet?

 

[Asturiel]

I completely agree with what Gahndi said, the world would go blind, and we would loose a kidney, a lung, the liver, and maybe the pancreas if shit hadnt already hit the fan by then. "Getting even" is just a fancy way of saying I dont know how to stop the violence, and were not all "Jesus" were human so it makes sense. But to do onto your neighbor as you would have them do unto you is an amazing phrase... if only people put it into fucking context and used it properly.

Main reason is that people are stupid and dont realize it's gone too far till they've packed their bags, crossed boarders, and made a bloody scrapbook miles away from it!!!!!!!

 

[Warped_Ghost]

Okay maybe that should be the case but what about when you get the wrong guy for a crime he didn't do?
Another thing is that no crime system is perfect but some are better than others and I beleive current 1st world countries crime systems do very well in discouraging crime.

 

[WolfThomas]

A friend of mine wrote a sort story about a bunch of vigilantes called the Karma Police (he was a radiohead fan) who went around doing the exact crime people committed back to them. From big crimes where they murdered murderers, to small things like mugging muggers. They were composed of hundreds of autonomous members of society, the only thing in common was they had a Rorschach style black mask which they put on and they left a calling card I forget what it was but it made sure people weren't punished twice.

It was interesting because criminal society adapted to only doing crimes they were prepared to possibly have done to themselves. So only the most suicidal and crazy criminal would kill. But a guy stealing a TV, was prepared for the chance to have something of equal value stolen from him.

Another interesting concept was that the vigilantes didn't help or save people, just punished the guilty. They wouldn't interrupt a violent assault, they'd wait for it to end and then beat the crap out of the criminal. They would also often keep the money they gained from carrying out vengeance, though some donated it.

 

[BonsaiK]

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.

It doesn't matter what the government sanctions. If it's your best friend or son or daughter or whatever who got killed by the government then that government-sanctioned person deserves to die. OR by extension the whole government/system deserves to die. But it sure as hell ain't over.

So then you get vigilante groups running around, all of whom have had friends murdered by the 'system', going out and killing cops and judges and anyone in authority whom might be perceived as part of that system that took their loved one away. In countries where "an eye for an eye" is routinely practiced, the governments experience fierce resistance from armed populations.

If the 'anyone who makes any attempt to continue the fight will die along with all of their immediate family' approach is used, things get even worse. Then you're dragging innocents into the equation, making the government/system look like even MORE of a **** and justifying even MORE armed resistance, mass killings etc. - the problem spirals upward indefinitely. Some areas of some cities in the world have massive social problems that will take generations to fade, because of this type of policy being consistently enacted on the local populations, either in an official capacity, or surreptitiously, or both.

 

[Naheal]

I do, but there's a point where justice must meet with common sense.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Eye for an eye just makes more angry victims, not justice.

 

[Kollega]

This is a good idea in theory - but you cannot possibly hope for proportional retribution. "Eye for an eye" quickly devolves into escalating violence - "Eye for stepping on my foot/taking my parking spot/beating me in a game of voleyball". So i say nay.

 

[Guy32]

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind

hmm... how 'bout if Guy X kills Guy Y, and then Guy Y's friend, Guy Z, comes to take Guy X's life, but instead loses his own. Guy X has now taken two eyes, thus making his enemies blind.

If his enemies can't see him then they certainly can't kill him. Guy X wins without penelty.

 

[Chronarch]

I think it's only fair, unless it was an accident. If someone tripped and their hand just happened to make contact with another person's face in a fist shape then it should be overlooked(unless someone could prove it wasn't an accident.) If someone just punches someone in the face then the person who got punched should be able to get one free punch on them.

 

[Kajin]

My tactics aim to demoralize and subjugate. You shouldn't fear something that's been put down.
...
Oh? You mean revenge agains't someone who has wronged me?

Yes.

 

[RatRace123]

In terms of stuff relating to legal issues, then yes I agree. In terms of petty stuff like gang violence, or a parking spot, then maybe... if the guy had it coming.

 

[Slayer_2]

If there is irrefutable evidence, then perhaps, in some cases. There is always the risk that you punish an innocent, and at least with imprisoning people, you can always let them out.

 

[Biosophilogical]

No. I do not agree with that saying. I think that punishment should't be used just because someone did something wrong, it should be a preventative measure to stop it happening again. So, if someone kills someone else on a crime of passion, give them counselling, not a death sentence. If however, someone is a serial killing nut-job who cannot be influenced to stop killing, then by all means kill his arse, because by killing him, he a) doesn't eat food and cost money to be kept imprisoned and b) it stops him from ever being given the opportunity to kill someone else.

So eye for an eye only really works if taking the other guy's eye stops him taking someone else's eye and even then surely you could just get him a sweet monocle so he is happier and feels less like taking another eye.

 

[Srkkl]

No, life isn't fair and bullshit like eye for an eye is where retards (gangs) grow and endanger everyone because they're too lazy to get a real job and too stupid to resolve problems in a logical way.

"Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

 

[Uncola Man]

Actually, "an eye for an eye" didn't start out as a phrase encouraging revenge. What "an eye for an eye" meant was if someone takes an eye, then you DON'T blind him and murder his entire family. With that in mind, I don't know how to view the saying.

 

[BonsaiK]

I fail to see how this negatively affects me at all.
If people resist, then they will be put down like the rabid animals they are.
Maybe all the killing will help with this overpopulation problem we seem to have.

It would affect you very negatively if someone in your family murdered someone.

There was a situation in WWII where a couple kids killed an SS soldier. The Nazis then swooped on the entire apartment block and killed everyone in it. Then they went to the apartment block across the street and did the same thing. About 200 people died. The people living in that block who happened to be Nazi supporters suddenly changed their tune when they were dragged out into the street and shot. Their "kill everyone who resists" government suddenly didn't seen so awesome.

And no it wasn't an effective deterrent either. The incident generated an armed undergrund resistance movement, and many more people died on both sides.

Also, the world does not have an overpopulation problem. Current projections show that the world's population is levelling out at about 9 billion, a number the planet can easily support. State-sanctioned killings are also not an effective means of population control, for the same reason that war has also always been very ineffective in this regard. Controlling birthrate is the only effective way to control population growth.

 

[londelen]

Hells no. Somebody takes my eye out, they aren't leaving alive.