Is an eye for an eye compensation a just punishment?
Yes, and I could go deeper.
As primitive as it seems, I believe this is more than a just punishment. I believe it is a necessary punishment. IF someone steals from you, cut off their hand. Its an old world value that has been lost because people are too cowardly to draw blood in the name of the law. In the older times, this was law and you see how little crime was because it was so risky.
Posted by: KibaWhiteWarriorI 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.
Posted by: 5hunCarI think than "an eye for an eye" is the oldest and best punishment.
An eye for an eye is one of the oldest theories about appropriate criminal punishment, and has remained in our modern sayings, because it resonates with so many people. It really can be the best way to punish someone, because instead of just sitting in jail, they actively learn what they did to someone else, or how they made someone else feel or hurt. Unfortunately, I do not think you can always enact this kind of punishment, because in a situation like murdering a child, or stealing something unique, how can you do the same thing to someone else? But, in situations where it is applicable, I think it can be the best way to teach someone a lesson that they will actually remember.
Posted by: lachercheuseYes to King Hammurabi's punishments.
Present day laws and procedures have no affect on limiting crime. Adultery, theft, and petty crimes would not be as meaningful if the punishments were much stricter. Welfare needs be cut to those that abuse the system, therefore crimes with such punishments would not be needed. All in all, people know what they can and can't get away with in our society.
Posted by: AnonymousI think an eye for an eye is appropriate because it might teach people how others feel about what they do.
If you do something to someone, you may not realize the physical or emotional impact until it's done back to you. After that, you would be able to empathize and will probably be deterred from doing it to anyone again.
Posted by: darcyskaOur current system is too lenient.
An "eye for an eye" should be the punishment put back into place in our current government. Its not the victims that would create the punishment, but the government system. If you rob someone you get your hands cut off to never hold a weapon again. You rape someone and your genitals are removed. You kill someone you get killed back. This is plain and simple. Instead our current system treats prisoners better then senior citizens with free tv, free internet, and three full meals a day. How is that a punishment??
Posted by: AnonymousDo unto others as you would have them do unto you
If someones wrongs you, you should be allowd to pay them back in kind, after all it say in the bible (which for the record I dont believe in) Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. So the way I see it, if a criminal is happy doing what he does, then let us do it to them! Its pretty much always the victims who get screwed over by the legal system anyway
Posted by: AnonymousI completely believe in Hammurabi's "eye for an eye" method.
I firmly believe that more people were punished in the same way that the crime was committed, they would think twice before doing it. No one wants to lose their fingers (or even just have their fingers bound) for stealing. No man would want to have his penis tortured for raping a woman. I definitely think more people would think before acting if this was put into place.
Posted by: OIi0IymPicNo, I disagree with the statement, "eye for an eye", because there is much more that needs to be considered before one thinks that irrationally.
There are many things that need to be looked into as to why people do certain things. "Eye for an eye" is not only barbaric, but it is irrational. When an act is committed, people should not only consider the motive, but also the background of the person who committed the offense. Fighting violence with violence is never the answer.
Posted by: StellaHI stand for an eye for an eye.
Why do people say two wrongs don't make a right. It's not about making a right. It's about getting rid of people that wrong others. We don't want you, and if you think it's ok to kill other people, then you should have no problem when we want you dead with the people you've killed.
Posted by: AnonymousA punishment, not revenge
An eye for an eye is a good concept when it comes to punishments. The criminals should be put in the victims shoes and the family should understand what it is like to have that happen to smoeone elses family so they do not do it again. But the criminal should be punished the same way they did the crime to the victim. It is not an 2 eyes for eye it is an eye for an eye. So if you rape someone, the government should have people that will rape you back. Once though! Again it is an eye for an eye, not a 2 eyes for an eye.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, an eye for an eye is not just punishment, because we live in a civilized society. We are not barbarians.
An eye for an eye punishment has no place in modern society, because we have other effective, less cruel ways of dealing with criminals. We can throw them in prison, make them do community service,hit them in the wallet with fines and penalties or send them to anger management classes. All of those options are effective punishments and treatments.
Posted by: labusyYea it is!!!
The Qur'an mentions the "eye for an eye" concept as being ordained for the Children of Israel.[18] The principle of Lex talionis in Islam is Qasas (قصاص) as mentioned in (Qur'an 2:178) "O you who have believed, prescribed for you is legal retribution (Qasas) for those murdered - the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But whoever overlooks from his brother anything, then there should be a suitable follow-up and payment to him with good conduct. This is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy. But whoever transgresses after that will have a painful punishment.". Some Muslim nations, still apply the rule, in accordance with the Mosaic Law. In some countries that use Islamic law (sharia), the "eye for an eye" rule is applied quite literally.[19][20]
“In the Torah We prescribed for them a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, an equal wound for a wound: if anyone forgoes this out of charity, it will serve as atonement for his bad deeds. Those who do not judge according to what God has revealed are doing grave wrong.” (Qurʾān 5:45)Posted by: AnonymousOnce validated, they deserve to experience their own methods of breaking the law
If someone kills somebody else out of cold blood, they definitely deserve to be shot in both legs. I'm not saying we should be like the Middle East, where small, accidental mistakes are punished with death. I'm saying that when a case is confirmed and that a person did break the law on purpose, they should be punished the same way they broke the law, so they know how it feels.
When someone steals: Make the thief give back what was stolen plus more.
When someone kills: Shoot them in the legs. (wounds should be treated though)
When someone strangles: Break their arms.
When someone rapes: Inject an STD into them.
It's that simple.Posted by: Anonymous
While sometimes an eye for an eye is a appropriate form of punishment, there are times when the situation is too complicated to make it work.
I believe an eye for an eye is not appropriate because the reasons for why the crime was commuted may be too complex. For example, someone with a mental illness can not always control their actions or their logic for why they do what they do. They need medical help. There are too many possible exceptions to every rule, and often times people are incorrectly accused/convicted. This could cause quite a few major legal issues.
Posted by: NiI35KixEye for an eye is unjust and illogical as it is known to lead to cyclical revenge.
A quote from one of my favorite songs says it best, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." It was realized by many cultures thousands of years ago the the cycle of revenge continues until revenge is no longer considered a suitable repercussion. This is why justice systems are removed to a degree from the "victim". Additionally, if someone commits a crime, doing the same unto them is logically a crime as well.
Posted by: daveyxhNo.
It's not harsh enough. You have some jerk who pokes out my eye for no reason, the absolute least that should happen to him is that he loses an eye too. The absolute least. But we also know he's unstable and a menace to people around him, so we should probably do much much more than that.
Posted by: AlwaysMoreThanYouGetting payback is not what life is about people will make mistakes, but they need other people to help them up.
If someone robbed you, it does not make sense to go and rob them just because they committed an act of dishonesty. There is a line of where the person should not be trusted because they stole. It is absurd to say pay back evil with evil. Instead, show them the right way -- the pure way -- and help them out of the hole that they dug themselves. It may sound crazy, but it will help them realize their wrong.
Posted by: MiIYoungerCompassion and rehabilitation should rule justice, not vengeance.
An eye for an eye attitude tends to perpetuate violence, rather than solve the underlying problems. That attitude tends to fuel most feuds, and almost every historical example of enmity between peoples and nations. Vengeance is human nature, but reacting with compassion and an eye towards problem solving can often do more good in the long run.
Posted by: HumdrumMilo83It doesn't get the job done, but it's a step in the right direction.
It would be really hard to compensate for the devastating wrongs that have been done to certain cultures. There should be some sort of effort to do so, though. The legacy of slavery, stolen land, being treated as property and displacement of a whole people can not be righted by giving some individuals a job. I truly don't think that this government is prepared to do anything near what it would take to right it's wrongs.
Posted by: MohaI0v35The victim is just as cruel to the criminal
No, it is not a just punishment because the victim will be or is just as cruel as the criminal if they do so. If the victim knows what the criminal has done is wrong, then why repeat what the criminal did? Why make the criminal suffer the same way when you know it's wrong?
Posted by: AnonymousNo, because eye for an eye punishment is impractical and immoral.
An eye for an eye sounds like perfect justice, but it's really just a silly idea. Most cases don't allow for such a simple matching of damage and penalty. How does one take the eye of a corporation? How does one punish a man for affecting the ability of a woman to conceive and bear children? There is no obvious way to match damage and punishment in such cases.
Posted by: LuciaLAn eye for an eye compensation is not a just punishment because it makes the victim as cruel as the criminal.
If the laws were set that made "an eye for an eye" the punishment, the victim would then become the aggressor, and it could change how they interact with the rest of the world. For example, if a man mugged a woman on a city street and he stabbed her during the crime, then by eye for an eye logic, she would not only mug him back, but stab him as well. Once she had stabbed him, a violent, potentially fatal act, it would have the potential to give a taste for violence that could affect other innocent people who were never involved in the original crime. It is better to let the courts punish the offender to protect the victim.
Posted by: BouncyWalter37Affirmative Action punishes current generations of non-minorities for the transgression of non-minorities against minorities.
Affirmative action is no longer a valid need in this country. It seeks to compensate minorities for transgressions against their ancestors, by alienating and limiting the opportunities of the off-spring of the non-minorities that committed these transgressions. It is vengeance through the generations and only seeks to alienate a new race and a new generation which perpetuates the cycle of racism through time.
Posted by: StormGraI do not believe that affirmative action compensates for past wrongs because it only aids the people of today.
The strict use of affirmative action does not allow companies enough leeway when evaluating applicants. Therefore, the only thing that affirmative action actually does is place less qualified individuals in open posts. Affirmative action was never intended to compensate for past wrongs. Rather, it was created to assist minorities and women to get jobs that would normally be off limits to them. Today affirmative action has gone too far beyond this original goal and is working to the detriment of companies and prospective employees across the nation. To make affirmative action a viable plan now employers should be required to use a blind interview process where the race and gender of applicants are unknown. This would insure that the most qualified candidates for the job are hired regardless of their race or gender.
Posted by: VampireShuI do not think that an eye for an eye is a just punishment because all crimes or injustices are not the same.
I believe an eye for an eye is not a just punishment because if we were to do that for all crimes it would be a world of revenge, not justice and we would be governed by fear. We will never know the reasons why most people do what they do but some, do it to protect families and property and taking harsh actions in return is not the answer. Sometimes lessons have to be taught, but not to condone the action that was had.
Posted by: WillowsErvI don't believe that eye for an eye is a just punishment, because it does not take into account any extenuating circumstances.
Eye for an eye is a poor punishment, because it is too simplistic. If a woman is raped, what is the eye for an eye equivalent? Does she get to then rape her rapist? That would not make any sense, nor would it be beneficial for the victim.
Posted by: Ch4rGaII disagree, mainly for the reason that, in reality, our judicial system is too flawed for this to be just.
I would normally agree with eye for an eye punishment, but our current judicial system is extremely flawed. When we give people the death penalty, we eventually come out with new techniques for analyzing evidence, then go back to analyze previous cases, and then realize that we put to death many innocent people.
Posted by: MuteNeal88