Taking an eye, An arm, A leg, Or a life can only effect those in the case for starters: Unless the whole world is in on it one half taking one half of the others it is impossible for such to happen with crime is dealt by a small percentage of people, I would even argue an eye for two eyes would be more effective as then it would disable those likely would commit more crimes and act as a terrifying deterrent; for example someone cuts off another arm they will then lose the ability to do that again as they will have lost their ability for such and therefore will not bother the general population. And for those who say it doesn't work such as someone stealing by robbery, Then their belongings and/or money should be taken, Or if they take multiple limbs then whilst it is torture they should endure it being taken multiple times even if it has to be reattached, And in the case of life by stabbing then being stabbed for the times the victims endured and then be disposed of. And in the case of rape they should endure another pain if they would enjoy the initial thinking such as being stabbed by a knife as many times as their crime or find another more fitting punishment. . . This would disable or eliminate any crime, You can call it brutish but can you deny it would work?
And in the case of you wanting the criminals to be reformed most are repeat offenders and likely have given up their life to crime a long time ago, But they would sure as hell think twice about it if they had to beget the punishment on themselves by doing such.
And if you say punishments may be wrongly dealt then that is with the justice system itself and so i would ask they look into the motivation to see if it is not vengeance itself to avoid to so called chain vengeance of "an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind", Which in a way would also make it more lenient in another way to counteract the harsh punishments, But still be feared.
An eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth show traits of fairness and just. Think about it this way, if a friend hits you, but your not aloud to hit back, you get frustrated. What if the LAW said it was MANDATORY to hit that person back, it would teach that person a valuable lesson not to hit you or anybody else. I rest my case
An eye for an eye should be in everyone's lives. Yes there is a limit to what you should do but if someone says something mean say something back not saying start a fight but still. We don't realize that an eye for an eye is everywhere. If someone kills someone they get the death penalty. If someone steals from someone they lose some of there stuff. It's in our lives way more then we know and should embrace it more but remember there is a limit and be smart about it
I agree with an eye for an eye compensation as a just punishment, manners as our ancestors have taught us to treat others as you wish to be treated.
Our ancestors have taught us to treat others as we would like to be treated, as well as the justice system. It is unfair to commit a crime without a consequence. Therefore the term an eye for an eye, if you choose to steal something you will be required to deal with the consequence. It is the only way to teach and learn lessons.
An eye for an eye is fair.EXAMPLE if someone beat someone up he should get beat up too. HOWEVER if someone kills someones friend for family member the friend or family member of the killer should not be killed because thats messed up.In this type of example example the killer should be killed. It brings justice and makes someone think twice before doing a crime.
If someone punches you, You should have the right to punch him/her right back. However, When someone commits a crime, You shouldn't do whatever he/she did to him/her. Like, If he/she rapes someone, It would be completely wrong for someone to rape him/her back, Regardless of what he or she did. It would be absolutely hypocritical. Also, If someone kills another person(s), He or she shouldn't be killed either unless the crime was exceptionally gruesome and inhumane. I don't believe that humans have the right to take life from other humans. Plus, Rotting in jail is a far worse punishment than being killed and getting the easy way out of it.
In an eye for an eye philosophy, some cases can never truly give the right punishment and are impossible. For example, if someone is to kill multiple people could equal compensation be reached. The equal would be multiple deaths but as Socrates said "Men are mortal" Therefore an eye for an eye philosophy cannot be reached in more serious cases.
Eye for an eye is not good punishment. It is showing the person that what they did is acceptable because others in authority position are using the same tactics as a way to punish people. We are supposed to show morale and be above hurting, and manipulating. Eye for an eye is just stooping to the wrong doers level, it is not a punishment.
1) An eye for an eye is too uncompromising and across the board in philosophy. Eye for an eye would have all crimes of robbery treated the same way, without the consideration of circumstance. It doesn't allow for a viewing of the full picture.
2) It does not provide the chance for reform. Somebody kills a man, and feels truly remorseful for it. Without an eye for an eye, he can go to jail for a long time, and leave a better man.