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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In regard to heinous crimes, if criminals know that the law would require them to receive the EXACT same things happen back to them for just punishment for heinous crimes, do you think they would risk committing horrific acts against the innocent knowing that the very same things would be done exactly the same way right back to them? The level of "cruelty" would only be the choice of the criminals themselves. An eye for an eye would be mandatory for heinous acts. The punishment could be fleeting, or fatal. It's up to the criminal and the level of the crime or crimes they commit. Therefore, the punishment would be THEIR OWN decision, and no one else's. If they torture or kill, they will have the same done back to them, with the same result if it included death. They would choose their own destiny. Since it is a choice, there is absolutely nothing cruel about it!
No one wants to have their hand cut off for stealing, or be killed for murdering- with these punishments in place less crime would happen. The fact is that a government who has the power of fear is a stronger government, and most people do not fear the current system- especially in contries where the prison system is less harsh like the UK and Norway.
The weakness lies in over exceeding the eye for an eye. We shouldn't be absorbed by revenge. But for example taking a life warrants a loss of yours. Because you made a decision you had no right to make. You deserve it yourself. But its hypocritical if I do it
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.