• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Eye for an eye?

braymoore

braymoore

Member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
173
Reaction score
63
Location
Rio de Janeiro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What is everyone's opinion on the phrase "an eye for an eye" in today's world? Think that it should be enforced as a law?
 
I don't think eye for an eye is a good policy for law and order. I've always been against the death penalty simply because there are so many worse thing than death.

I think a long time in a jail cell is the best thing for a lot of serious cases.
 
braymoore said:
What is everyone's opinion on the phrase "an eye for an eye" in today's world? Think that it should be enforced as a law?
Click to expand...

In an ancient world when there was no good legal system, but only clans struggling for survival and dominance against each other like in OT times, "eye for an eye" was actually a very progressive rule limiting casualties: If your enemy clan killed one of your people, you didn't have to go on a blood feud killing off dozens of them. Your revenge was limited to just one life from the enemy side, and justice was done. Achieving that most clans would accept this rule of proportionality was not a little success back then.

Today, we have much better ways to deal with criminals. In my opinion, revenge should not play a role in the legal system. Revenge is not different than the original crime, the only difference being that the latter is committed first and the former second. Also, revenge usually destroys the one seeking revenge by hurting him more than the target of his revenge.

So the legal system should make sure that 1) society is protected from a potentially dangerous criminal, 2) the punishment must serve as deterrence against potential other criminals and 3) ideally, the sentence should allow for rehabilitation of the criminal, if possible. Revenge is absolutely not necessary, neither is death penalty to reach this objective.
 
German guy said:
In an ancient world when there was no good legal system, but only clans struggling for survival and dominance against each other like in OT times, "eye for an eye" was actually a very progressive rule limiting casualties: If your enemy clan killed one of your people, you didn't have to go on a blood feud killing off dozens of them. Your revenge was limited to just one life from the enemy side, and justice was done. Achieving that most clans would accept this rule of proportionality was not a little success back then.

Today, we have much better ways to deal with criminals. In my opinion, revenge should not play a role in the legal system. Revenge is not different than the original crime, the only difference being that the latter is committed first and the former second. Also, revenge usually destroys the one seeking revenge by hurting him more than the target of his revenge.

So the legal system should make sure that 1) society is protected from a potentially dangerous criminal, 2) the punishment must serve as deterrence against potential other criminals and 3) ideally, the sentence should allow for rehabilitation of the criminal, if possible. Revenge is absolutely not necessary, neither is death penalty to reach this objective.
Click to expand...

I most definately agree with you. I just hear a lot of people here in Brazil always saying "an eye for an eye" and wanted to see what others thought of it in todays world. Definately not the most effective way of dealing with justice.
 
braymoore said:
I most definately agree with you. I just hear a lot of people here in Brazil always saying "an eye for an eye" and wanted to see what others thought of it in todays world. Definately not the most effective way of dealing with justice.
Click to expand...

In some places like Iran, they're still practizing law to that extent. IIRC, there was the case of a woman who had been blinded by a jalous man she had rejected -- he threw acid into her face, resulting in her losing eyesight. The court then ruled that she was allowed to throw acid into the perpetrator's face too. She decided to show mercy, though, and chose not to do that.

I assume most of us agree that this is barbaric. And that countries like Iran are not really a good example for us (although I'm afraid that even here in the West, many people still have rather strict ideas about law and order and probably sympathize with that ruling).
 
I feel the punishment should fit the crime.

You intentionally or cause to intentionally take someone's life, yours is forfeit.

You rape, you loose the offending member.

You steal, you loose all that you have, or may have in the future, until the value is paid back.

If the punishment is not commensurate with the crime, the value of the crime is unfelt by those who commit it.

The percentage of reoffenders proves that our criminal system doesn't work as well as it should.
 
GottaGo said:
I feel the punishment should fit the crime.

You intentionally or cause to intentionally take someone's life, yours is forfeit.

You rape, you loose the offending member.

You steal, you loose all that you have, or may have in the future, until the value is paid back.

If the punishment is not commensurate with the crime, the value of the crime is unfelt by those who commit it.

The percentage of reoffenders proves that our criminal system doesn't work as well as it should.
Click to expand...

Somewhere, I read that 4% of the US population are currently in prison. If true, that makes me think something is really going wrong with the legal system. I'd rather see more investments on the side of prevention and rehabilitation to prevent crime in the first place.
 
I hate it. It allows blind people to do whatever they want and not face repercussions.
 
I very much agree with GottaGo's comments. Our system penalizes but does not punish. These criminals often come out of prison better criminals than they went in. There is no deterence factor in our Legal system and far too much leeway/judgement left to Judges and Juries for my liking.
 
Vengeance isn't justice is what I think. I'm opposed to wasting money on life sentences though.
 
braymoore said:
What is everyone's opinion on the phrase "an eye for an eye" in today's world? Think that it should be enforced as a law?
Click to expand...

Acting stupid to someone who acted stupid is not going to make either any smarter.
 
M_A said:
I don't think eye for an eye is a good policy for law and order. I've always been against the death penalty simply because there are so many worse thing than death.

I think a long time in a jail cell is the best thing for a lot of serious cases.
Click to expand...

That would be considered "cruel and unusual punishment" if the penalty is considered "worse than death".
 
Risky Thicket said:
Acting stupid to someone who acted stupid is not going to make either any smarter.
Click to expand...

An eye for an eye is the principle that a person who has injured another person is penalized to a similar degree, or according to other interpretations the victim receives the value of the injury in compensation.
Click to expand...

Acting stupid has nothing to do with the eye for an eye principle:lol:
 
German guy said:
Somewhere, I read that 4% of the US population are currently in prison. If true, that makes me think something is really going wrong with the legal system. I'd rather see more investments on the side of prevention and rehabilitation to prevent crime in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yes, prevention is always the best measure, followed by rehabilitation. I mean since most jailable offenses jail the offender for months to a couple of years, if we aren't rehabilitating them, what do we think they're going to do when they get out? There are a myriad of complex reasons for most types of crime, many criminals aren't ruined people who have no hope of rehabilitation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom