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.
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.