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

[Internet Kraken]

Hell yes, guy kills someone, guy gets executed. Seems totally fair in my opinion.

See this:

what do you do to a rapist? Do you have someone rape them? How do you decide who rapes them? Is the government going to start hiring people for the purpose of raping rapists? Does that not sound absurd?

Eye for an Eye just isn't practical.

...I think you're taking the term a little too literally...

Not really. That's what it involves. And that's why it's impractical.

Actually, my interpritation of eye-for-an-eye was to take something from the offender that was of equal value to what the victim lost, i.e. you break an athlete's legs? Well what's this, you're a programmer? Say goodbye to the hands that you use to program computers.

And to the rapists? Who says you have to hire anyone? Just bind his/her limbs and put them in a cell with another rapist and have the guards turn the other way for a few minutes, simple.

That's completely pointless though. Why break the programmer's arms? That just wastes talent. All you have done is rendered two people incapable of doing their jobs.

And who the hell says the rapist would even rape this prisoner? And why is this rapist allowed to rape the prisoner? He would only do it if he enjoyed it, and if he enjoys it that means he's not being punished.

 

[Aesir23]

There's a simple saying that comes to mind.

"An eye for an eye makes the world go blind."

 

[Eri]

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?

There is no so on and so on. If they continue it it's because they are morons who do not understand the concept or/of fairness.

 

[BakaSmurf]

Hell yes, guy kills someone, guy gets executed. Seems totally fair in my opinion.

See this:

what do you do to a rapist? Do you have someone rape them? How do you decide who rapes them? Is the government going to start hiring people for the purpose of raping rapists? Does that not sound absurd?

Eye for an Eye just isn't practical.

...I think you're taking the term a little too literally...

Not really. That's what it involves. And that's why it's impractical.

Actually, my interpritation of eye-for-an-eye was to take something from the offender that was of equal value to what the victim lost, i.e. you break an athlete's legs? Well what's this, you're a programmer? Say goodbye to the hands that you use to program computers.

And to the rapists? Who says you have to hire anyone? Just bind his/her limbs and put them in a cell with another rapist and have the guards turn the other way for a few minutes, simple.

That's completely pointless though. Why break the programmer's arms? That just wastes talent. All you have done is rendered two people incapable of doing their jobs.

And who the hell says the rapist would even rape this prisoner? And why is this rapist allowed to rape the prisoner? He would only do it if he enjoyed it, and if he enjoys it that means he's not being punished.

Then just give all rapists the death sentence.

And hey! I didn't break the athlete's legs, the programmer did, hence the breakage of the programmer's arms. I say that if we have some psycho going about breaking people's legs, we can do without his talent, and I'd say that the athlete that lost the ability to actually work in his profression wouldn't think it'd be very pointless.

 

[tthor]

'eye for an eye' actually is refering to money, atleast biblically


EDIT: so if i poke out my left eye, does this mean i must poke out my right eye as well?

 

[boredkid]

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.

You don't commit a crime because of what is going to happen to you if you get caught. You commit a crime knowing the risk if you get caught. It might deter some smaller crimes from happening, but people who are stealing to feed their families and murdering in a heat of passion are still going to do so, regardless of the punishment we threaten.

That being said how are you going to enforce "eye for an eye" in response to every crime? Someone parks in a handicap space without a permit, what are you going to do? Make sure that a handicap person parks where ever that person wants to park every time? And if someone kidnaps your child, when they do not have a child themselves, how do you punish them?

There's a reason such a policy isn't in place.

 

[Bebosis]

I agree with an eye for an eye. Maybe it will make people want to start keeping there eyes. Besides it wouldnt make the whole world go blind. Youd still have the other eye.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Hell yes, guy kills someone, guy gets executed. Seems totally fair in my opinion.

See this:

what do you do to a rapist? Do you have someone rape them? How do you decide who rapes them? Is the government going to start hiring people for the purpose of raping rapists? Does that not sound absurd?

Eye for an Eye just isn't practical.

...I think you're taking the term a little too literally...

Not really. That's what it involves. And that's why it's impractical.

Actually, my interpritation of eye-for-an-eye was to take something from the offender that was of equal value to what the victim lost, i.e. you break an athlete's legs? Well what's this, you're a programmer? Say goodbye to the hands that you use to program computers.

And to the rapists? Who says you have to hire anyone? Just bind his/her limbs and put them in a cell with another rapist and have the guards turn the other way for a few minutes, simple.

That's completely pointless though. Why break the programmer's arms? That just wastes talent. All you have done is rendered two people incapable of doing their jobs.

And who the hell says the rapist would even rape this prisoner? And why is this rapist allowed to rape the prisoner? He would only do it if he enjoyed it, and if he enjoys it that means he's not being punished.

Then just give all rapists the death sentence.

And hey! I didn't break the athlete's legs, the programmer did, hence the breakage of the programmer's arms. I say that if we have some psycho going about breaking people's legs, we can do without his talent, and I'd say that the athlete that lost the ability to actually work in his profression wouldn't think it'd be very pointless.

Yes. I'm sure the athlete would be very happy knowing that pointless revenge has now ruined both of their careers. Call me crazy, but I prefer the justice system that gives the victim time to reflect on their actions and allows them a chance to function again in society. And hey, what if the programmer was actually innocent? What if he was wrongly accused? Well with the current justice system we may not be able to give him his time back, but at least he can still return to a normal life. He wouldn't be able to do that if you broke his arms.

Also, keep in mind that Eye for an Eye is meant to subject the offender to a punishment that is neither lenient nor excessive. Killing a rapist could be considered an excessive punishment, and thus it does not fit in with Eye for an Eye.

I agree with an eye for an eye. Maybe it will make people want to start keeping there eyes. Besides it wouldnt make the whole world go blind. Youd still have the other eye.

No it wouldn't. You want proof? Back when we actually did use Eye for an Eye, crime was still a big problem.

 

[Mad World]

I don't believe that we have the right to decide when other human beings deserve to die.

 

[Ocelot GT]

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.

 

[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?

 

[Bebosis]

I agree with an eye for an eye. Maybe it will make people want to start keeping there eyes. Besides it wouldnt make the whole world go blind. Youd still have the other eye.

No it wouldn't. You want proof? Back when we actually did use Eye for an Eye, crime was still a big problem.[/quote]

It probaly was. Eye for an Eye is a system that would really only work with certain crimes. It a flawed system which is why it isnt used. By i still agree with it. I want my revenge. Just like Montezuma.

 

[Guitar Gamer]

I agree with an eye for an eye. Maybe it will make people want to start keeping there eyes. Besides it wouldnt make the whole world go blind. Youd still have the other eye.

the point of the quote is that you'd run out of eye's pretty quickly meaning that to have exact revenge on every wrong that's been done to you would
a) make you a weirder person demanding vengeance on that guy who didn't let you merge on the highway
b) be stupidly unreasonable to the folks who make a silly mistake,
c) qickly mean that you too would end up blind because no matter how hard you may try, you are NOT going to always make the right decision all the time and you are NOT going to not wrong someone as your life progress, people do bad things sometimes and you just got to forgive them sometimes

 

[Serge A. Storms]

Eye for an eye is wonderful, if you live in a fantasy world where criminal laws based on revenge and bloodlust instead of deterrence and rehabilitation somehow actually result in peace and prosperity throughout the land. Why focus on socioeconomic issues or escalating crime rates when you can steal from burglars, rape rapists and kill murderers? I'm sure that'll lower some goddamn crime rates.

 

[BakaSmurf]

Hell yes, guy kills someone, guy gets executed. Seems totally fair in my opinion.

See this:

what do you do to a rapist? Do you have someone rape them? How do you decide who rapes them? Is the government going to start hiring people for the purpose of raping rapists? Does that not sound absurd?

Eye for an Eye just isn't practical.

...I think you're taking the term a little too literally...

Not really. That's what it involves. And that's why it's impractical.

Actually, my interpritation of eye-for-an-eye was to take something from the offender that was of equal value to what the victim lost, i.e. you break an athlete's legs? Well what's this, you're a programmer? Say goodbye to the hands that you use to program computers.

And to the rapists? Who says you have to hire anyone? Just bind his/her limbs and put them in a cell with another rapist and have the guards turn the other way for a few minutes, simple.

That's completely pointless though. Why break the programmer's arms? That just wastes talent. All you have done is rendered two people incapable of doing their jobs.

And who the hell says the rapist would even rape this prisoner? And why is this rapist allowed to rape the prisoner? He would only do it if he enjoyed it, and if he enjoys it that means he's not being punished.

Then just give all rapists the death sentence.

And hey! I didn't break the athlete's legs, the programmer did, hence the breakage of the programmer's arms. I say that if we have some psycho going about breaking people's legs, we can do without his talent, and I'd say that the athlete that lost the ability to actually work in his profression wouldn't think it'd be very pointless.

Yes. I'm sure the athlete would be very happy knowing that pointless revenge has now ruined both of their careers. Call me crazy, but I prefer the justice system that gives the victim time to reflect on their actions and allows them a chance to function again in society. And hey, what if the programmer was actually innocent? What if he was wrongly accused? Well with the current justice system we may not be able to give him his time back, but at least he can still return to a normal life. He wouldn't be able to do that if you broke his arms.

Also, keep in mind that Eye for an Eye is meant to subject the offender to a punishment that is neither lenient nor excessive. Killing a rapist could be considered an excessive punishment, and thus it does not fit in with Eye for an Eye.

I agree with an eye for an eye. Maybe it will make people want to start keeping there eyes. Besides it wouldnt make the whole world go blind. Youd still have the other eye.

No it wouldn't. You want proof? Back when we actually did use Eye for an Eye, crime was still a big problem.

I never said to just outright punish the accused, I require proof of the deed before carrying out the punishment.

You know what? I can see that neither of us are going to sway or persuade the other, and I don't like the idea of a single massive quotation appearing every other post ruining the flow of the thread, so why don't we just end this and agree to disagree?

 

[Bebosis]

I agree with an eye for an eye. Maybe it will make people want to start keeping there eyes. Besides it wouldnt make the whole world go blind. Youd still have the other eye.

the point of the quote is that you'd run out of eye's pretty quickly meaning that to have exact revenge on every wrong that's been done to you would
a) make you a weirder person demanding vengeance on that guy who didn't let you merge on the highway
b) be stupidly unreasonable to the folks who make a silly mistake,
c) qickly mean that you too would end up blind because no matter how hard you may try, you are NOT going to always make the right decision all the time and you are NOT going to not wrong someone as your life progress, people do bad things sometimes and you just got to forgive them sometimes

Yeah i get that. I suppose my idea for an Eye for an Eye is it only applys to really meaningful or really bad or evil things. I dont really think if someone cuts me off on the highway im going to chase them down and chop there pinky off lol.

 

[gamefreakbsp]

"An eye for an eye" would work quite often, but there are always different circumstances to every story. There would have to be a committee of people to decide when "An eye for an eye" should be applicable.

 

[Ocelot GT]

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.

 

[Guitar Gamer]

I agree with an eye for an eye. Maybe it will make people want to start keeping there eyes. Besides it wouldnt make the whole world go blind. Youd still have the other eye.

the point of the quote is that you'd run out of eye's pretty quickly meaning that to have exact revenge on every wrong that's been done to you would
a) make you a weirder person demanding vengeance on that guy who didn't let you merge on the highway
b) be stupidly unreasonable to the folks who make a silly mistake,
c) qickly mean that you too would end up blind because no matter how hard you may try, you are NOT going to always make the right decision all the time and you are NOT going to not wrong someone as your life progress, people do bad things sometimes and you just got to forgive them sometimes

Yeah i get that. I suppose my idea for an Eye for an Eye is it only applies to really meaningful or really bad or evil things. I don't really think if someone cuts me off on the highway I'm going to chase them down and chop there pinky off lol.

[sup]edited by a grammar nazi[/sup]
Exactly. Nor can you determine what a serious crime is as I believe on certain days you feel you would certainly want to chase down and cut off the finger of a guy who cut you off. unless you always have a good composure or something

 

[Warteen]

Historically, the Jews were given the "eye for an eye" command because they were going nuts with cruel and unusual punishment. People were being killed for relatively minor offenses. The people in charge (well, God, if you believe that) instituted the "an eye for an eye" command to get them to SCALE BACK on their "justice". It should also be pointed out that this rule was only ever intended for that particular society (for the reason stated) and is not recommended in the Bible for all people at all times. The command given to modern people following Biblical wisdom is more along the lines of "turn the other cheek". "An eye for an eye" was never supposed to be a permanent fix.