I have a question for all those that put disagree: Isn’t the opposite of “eye for an eye” forgiveness?
We act as though we are some how more civilized by not taking revenge. Instead we sit back and let the State dictate how that person should be punished.
This basic notion of retribution seems to flow from the Old Testament, which was followed up by the New Testament that encouraged forgiveness. Whether or not you’re religious is irrelevant, I just wanted to point that out.
When we advocate, “doing something to the accused” we are still looking for retribution.
This debate has said
“You poked out my eye so I (or the state) pokes yours out,” is wrong, but
"You poked out my eye so you’ll spend a year in jail,” is right.
Jail is a horrid place that none of use want to visit. Wouldn’t that make jail simply our version of torture? We look down on the middle/biblical ages and barbaric, but how will we be viewed in 50-100 years?
Most of us seem to agree that out-right revenge is wrong, but then everyone here has insisted that there be some form of punishment.
So perhaps the real debate here should focus on “what constitutes an eye.” Airman wants to take it literally and that’s fine. Others want jail time, others want “removal of civil liberties.”
One more question, mostly to Airman who had enough balls to express his convictions: what do you do when the defendant has no eyes, no teeth, no car…?
Revenge or retribution, though, is only one of the reasons we have a justice system, emacknight. Rehabilitation is, for me, the most important; for others, it is keeping the public safe from a certain individual or individuals. That one action precipitates a response doesn’t mean that response must therefore be retributive. Is retributive a word? If not, it should be, for its meaning is clear.
Replace the word “revenge” with the word “justice”.
Justice has not been done if a person who has stolen a car is not obligated to replace the one he has stolen, and compensate for the time without a car that his victim has suffered. 6 months in jail for grand theft auto is not justice, its simple punishment, no better or more effective in my eyes than flogging.
I Agree with the political compass statement. I do not strongly agree, because there are many cases in which justice simply can’t be done, such as murder or assault resulting in injury. Beating, mindless incarceration, and the death penalty are equally distasteful in my eyes, because the are equally ineffective at dealing justice, and only inflict punishment instead.
Libertarian/Right
Economic Left/Right: 4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.18
Checks disagree. Again, the problem with the question is its absolutist nature. However, generally I don’t agree with the whole eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth thing. This isn’t to say that punishment for wrong doing isn’t appropriate, because think it is if we are to have a civilization. If you commit a crime, you should be punished for it. However, this like for like punishment is not part of the modern world IMO.
Anyway, I generally agree with SentientMeat’s take on this one. That kind of brutal reasoning is best left to our more barbaric past.
I think the statement **MUST ** be taken literally. Of what value would “the punishment should fit the crime” be as a question? Would anyone disagree with that, arguing that punishment should be independent of the crime committed?
But punishments do not always “fit” crimes since they are not always done for retribution. You can get a life sentence for not killing people, for example. Even disregarding the death penalty, a life sentence for a murder seems closer to “eye for an eye” than “the punishment fits the crime” to me. Just because we switch to a figurative interpretation does not mean we’ve opened the flood gates, John Mace, it just means a closer examination of our own subjective interpretations is necessary to reach a conclusion.
Take, for example, the crime of rape. A literal interpretation is, of course, impossible in “normal” male-penis-in-female-vagina rape: the man has no vagina, so there is no literal recourse. For one example. Yet I cannot imagine a statistically significant number of people who believed in “an eye for an eye” and yet felt that this man should simply go free without punishment, you see what I mean? There’s literal, and there’s ridiculously literal.
I had long ago printed out my responses, and I always seem to be replying to these threads at work when my responses are at home, but this (~4,~5) left anarchist probably answered “strongly disagree”. Rehabilitation is, for me, the primary purpose of a criminal justice system, its secondary purpose being public protection from those it cannot rehabilitate, retribution falling nowhere on the list; retribution being the purpose of the civil justice system where redress is more literally than figuratively possible, given accepted standards (e.g., the equivalence of “goods and services” and money). This means, in most senses, I’d also disagree with “the punishment should fit the crime”, which I feel is again just using the state’s guns for majority vigilantism. Retribition, to me, is only possible if redress is possible, in which case they are the same. Where there can be no redress, any retribution is an empty or at most emotionally satisfying to a small number of interested parties. I do not see the benefit of a criminal justice system that serves only those hurt directly by people’s actions, and so I cannot in good faith support retribution as the primary purpose of criminal justice.
I think the common meaning of “the punishment should fir the crime” is “more serious crimes should get more serious punishment”, not that the punishment should be similar in kind to the crime.
Of what value is it to ask about “any eye for an eye?” Would anyone agree that our legal system should punish offenders by poking out their eyes, pulling out their teeth, or breaking bones?
Point taken. But it would **NOT ** be hard to find people who think, for example, that a murderer should be put to death in the same manner that he used to commit a murder (slow torture, for example, if that was used).
I, too, don’t think it should be taken literally. Like everything else on the test, it is meant to get a gut reaction, and shouldn’t be overanalyzed.
I think that punishments should be more harsh than they are now, especially when a party is hurt or wronged. If someone steals my car, part of his punishment should include compensating me for the value of the car.
On the other hand, when there isn’t a victim for a crime (drug use, prostitution, gambling, etc) I think these crimes should not be crimes at all. Or, at the very least, lets not fill up the prisons with these people. There isn’t any “eye” or “tooth” that was taken. No wrong was done to anyone.
But, when someone hurts me, or my family, they should suffer for it. Crimes against others should be harshly punished.
In the same respect that I am VERY anti-abortion, but nonetheless were I put into a position of responsibility I would not make any effort to make it illegal.
That my sense of justice is vengeful and stern does not mean that I personally have the right to make everyone conform to my beliefs. AFAIC, what we have now is acceptable, if a bit too lenient, with the rare exceptions when there is a miscarriage of justice.
I don’t know…it seems a pretty straight forward question. Do you belive in the biblical ‘An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’ style punishment? This was meant quite literally in the bible…literally if someone took an eye, they lost an eye in return. If someone stole an apple, they lost their hand. If someone committed rape, their cock was chopped off (no idea what happened to the female rapists in this scenerio). If somoene killed, their life was forfeit, etc etc.
I don’t think the question is asking if ‘A punishment should fit the crime’…but if you believe in a literal interperatation of ‘An eye for an eye’. I think people are over analyzing this thing. There certainly ARE people who literally believe in the ‘eye for an eye’ philosophy. The question asks, are you one of them (IMO)? Least, thats how I interpereted it.
Again, my only caviot is one of absolutes (which is why I answered disagree, instead of strongly disagree). Sometimes it IS appropriate (so to speak)…if someone kills and their crime is judged heinous enough, their life is forfiet (either literally, a la CP, or figuratively, where the criminal spends the rest of his/her life in prison…either way, their ‘life’ is still forfiet to society). But generally speaking, if you steal a car, you go to jail…you don’t have your car taken from you.
I can’t think of any right now (since I’m just watching the clock so I can get the hell out of the office and go home), but I think there are a (very) few (very) isolated incidents where “eye for an eye” is the fairest and most efficient way to adjust the attitude of the instigator while providing justice to the victim. That being said, it is certainly not a universal concept.
Yes, I knew this. A case could be made that the code in the bible derived from some of this in fact. But I guess I don’t see you point. Ok, so its not strictly biblical. The question still seems to be asking if you agree with this literal definition, whether it comes from the bible of earlier (or even later) codes of law. So, whether it comes from this source or that source, I think its part of our past as a species and I disagree that, as a general pricipal, ‘an eye for an eye’ is a good idea in our day and age.
Airman Doors Let me try again. What range of death causing actions should result in the death of the criminal/killer. What is now premeditated murder? Reckless endangerment? Anything that could likely result in a successful “wrongful death” suit?
Hi, my name is Zagadka, and I scored almost exactly on Ghandi, which I’m warm and fuzzy about.
I think that the Biblical (isn’t it Biblical?) phrase “eye for an eye” was never meant to be taken literally - eye for an eye. The principal is that when someone causes someone else to lose something, they should pay a FAIR penalty, not an EQUAL penalty. For instance, stealing a loaf of bread should be penalized by something a little less than 18 years in prison (if Jean Val Jean doesn’t mind me using him as an example).
The literal correlation is quite absurd, at least now. Maybe I’m wrong, and maybe it was literal - you steal my donkey, you owe me one of your donkeys. This makes more sense in a “tribal” system that doesn’t have large facilities for jailing people for prolonged periods of time.
Maybe a better way to phrase it in modern society is, “for each crime, a just punishment.” To that, I give my 100% support. This does not, however, resolve issues of crime and punishment - you have to decide, for instance, what a just punishment for rape is. In America, it is generally agreed that losing liberty (or community service, to a lesser extent) is a just punishment, which is OK with me. Still have to define how LONG that liberty is denied for, but I think we do a fairly good job with that. Except for posession of marijuana. That is stupid and is destroying our justice system and jail capacity.
