Eye for an eye (1 Viewer)

[Brutus]

What is fundamentally wrong with eye for an eye? Looking for some ideas... It seems decently rational and fair to me. Basically... that idea is a foundation for the idea of human equality (under law not living conditions).

 

[GarzaUK]

Eye for an eye philosophy is based on vengenence and extreme human emotion.

Justice acts as a balance for society between good and bad, hence the scales.

Funny how the US considers itself a christain country yet according to Jesus he teaches against the eye to eye philosophy. The US is the only Western nation to have the death pelanty, yet still has the highest crime rates in the West especially murder.

 

[kal-el]

What is fundamentally wrong with eye for an eye? Looking for some ideas... It seems decently rational and fair to me. Basically... that idea is a foundation for the idea of human equality (under law not living conditions).

Rational and fair? Anyway, it's not eye for eye, if it was, like I already stated, we'd torture a torturer, or rape a rapist. Basically it's eye for a tooth, or eye for a big toe. It's wrong. There is no excuse for letting the government execute it's citizens. It just adds to the violent behavior, making society more brutalized.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by kal-el:
Rational and fair? Anyway, it's not eye for eye, if it was, like I already stated, we'd torture a torturer, or rape a rapist. Basically it's eye for a tooth, or eye for a big toe. It's wrong. There is no excuse for letting the government execute it's citizens. It just adds to the violent behavior, making society more brutalized.

Your absolutely right. People that say it is a deterrent, are saying murder is a rational act. As far as fairness, show me one wealthy person that has ever been executed. The rich murder too (are you listening John Dupont?). But because they can afford the Johnny Cochrans of the world, they'll never go to the gallows. O.J. proved that.

Not to get on a religious rant, I feel the need to bring light to the fact that an "eye for an eye" is not the entire statement and is being used out of context. It's:

"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, vengence is mine sayeth the Lord"

I can't understand why so many people such as Brutus, mis-interpret this quote. It is very apparant that HE is saying that it's not our call to make. But it is HIS, and he will take care of the retribution when the time comes. It's like Karma, what goes around, comes around. That's HIS guarantee to us.

I almost forgot, thank you for your kind words on the other thread. But don't sell yourself short. You've shown you can hang with any poster on this board.

 

[kal-el]

Not to get on a religious rant, I feel the need to bring light to the fact that an "eye for an eye" is not the entire statement and is being used out of context. It's:

I can't understand why so many people such as Brutus, mis-interpret this quote. It is very apparant that HE is saying that it's not our call to make. But it is HIS, and he will take care of the retribution when the time comes. It's like Karma, what goes around, comes around. That's HIS guarantee to us.

I almost forgot, thank you for your kind words on the other thread. But don't sell yourself short. You've shown you can hang with any poster on this board.

Yes, I don't understand why religious nuts are so pro-death penalty. If they truly followed Jesus' teachings, like the Christians like to claim, they would be anti. In the OT, the 6th Commandment states:

Thou shalt not kill

http://www.stjohndc.org/russian/Command/e_Command_06_deathpen.htm

Hey, don't worry about it, I just speak the truth. I was simply making a keen observation, that's all.:2razz:

 

[Brutus]

Rational and fair? Anyway, it's not eye for eye, if it was, like I already stated, we'd torture a torturer, or rape a rapist. Basically it's eye for a tooth, or eye for a big toe. It's wrong. There is no excuse for letting the government execute it's citizens. It just adds to the violent behavior, making society more brutalized.

Well... I'd like to believe that all citizens are equal under the law--and the the government should do it's best to [edit: typo] ensure that all lives have the same value. So... if you end someone's life, why should you not be put to death? Is a criminal's life worth MORE than the person who was murdered? I'd like to think they are worth the same, which is why the criminal's life should be ended. Seems like justice to me.

And Bill... I know I took the quote from the Bible, but I couldn't find a good quote from Hammurabi's law.

Also, I believe that it should be an eye for an eye, I wasn't directly talking about the death penalty--rapists, causing much humiliation, should be publicly humiliated (not put to death).

[edit] I'm an athiest.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Well... I'd like to believe that all citizens are equal under the law--and the the government should do it's best to [edit: typo] ensure that all lives have the same value. So... if you end someone's life, why should you not be put to death? Is a criminal's life worth MORE than the person who was murdered? I'd like to think they are worth the same, which is why the criminal's life should be ended. Seems like justice to me.

And Bill... I know I took the quote from the Bible, but I couldn't find a good quote from Hammurabi's law.

Also, I believe that it should be an eye for an eye, I wasn't directly talking about the death penalty--rapists, causing much humiliation, should be publicly humiliated (not put to death).

[edit] I'm an athiest.

Y tu Brute?

 

[alphieb]

What is fundamentally wrong with eye for an eye? Looking for some ideas... It seems decently rational and fair to me. Basically... that idea is a foundation for the idea of human equality (under law not living conditions).

eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth means between one and god on judgement day, not here on earth,

 

[Brutus]

Trajan, nothing wrong with defending the republic . Screw the imperator!!!

And alphieb, I know it's a biblical quote, but take it's literal meaning not it's religious.

 

[kal-el]

Well... I'd like to believe that all citizens are equal under the law--and the the government should do it's best to [edit: typo] ensure that all lives have the same value. So... if you end someone's life, why should you not be put to death? Is a criminal's life worth MORE than the person who was murdered? I'd like to think they are worth the same, which is why the criminal's life should be ended. Seems like justice to me.

Justice. If you consider that justice, than you must also consider the killing of innocents justice also, since no justice system is infallible. We are indeed sending out the wrong message by killing people that kill people. It brutalizes society and creates more criminal activity. It brings society down to the same level of the people its trying to punish.

 

[alphieb]

Justice. If you consider that justice, than you must also consider the killing of innocents justice also, since no justice system is infallible. We are indeed sending out the wrong message by killing people that kill people. It brutalizes society and creates more criminal activity. It brings society down to the same level of the people its trying to punish.

I agree, What kind of message does it send when one kills (wrong) and we turn around and kill them too. Plus, criminals that have a life sentence would probably rather die anyway. I'm not sure you could even consider that justice.

You also must consider one may be innocent and executed.

 

[Brutus]

Justice. If you consider that justice, than you must also consider the killing of innocents justice also, since no justice system is infallible. We are indeed sending out the wrong message by killing people that kill people. It brutalizes society and creates more criminal activity. It brings society down to the same level of the people its trying to punish.

I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning... how under the eye for an eye system is the killing of innocents justice? Also, it isn't the act of killing that is fundamentally wrong (which you suggest by saying that we would be sending out the wrong message), it is the thought, or lack there of, behind the act. Which is also why I disagree with the last sentence of your statement: society punishing criminals by death is different than a criminal murdering.

I agree, What kind of message does it send when one kills (wrong) and we turn around and kill them too. Plus, criminals that have a life sentence would probably rather die anyway. I'm not sure you could even consider that justice.

You also must consider one may be innocent and executed.

I answered your first part above. As for your second part, there are mistakes in our current justice system, and if life is prison is worse than death isn't it less humane to imprison someone wrongfully than to execute someone wrongfully?

As for your statement about "criminals that... die anyway," I thought that punishment wasn't supposed to be about the most pain caused to the criminal, but justice.

 

[kal-el]

I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning... how under the eye for an eye system is the killing of innocents justice? Also, it isn't the act of killing that is fundamentally wrong (which you suggest by saying that we would be sending out the wrong message), it is the thought, or lack there of, behind the act. Which is also why I disagree with the last sentence of your statement: society punishing criminals by death is different than a criminal murdering.

Maybe I haven't made myself clear. It's not justice under the eye for an eye system. You're saying it's not the act itself, it's the thought. I highly disagree. Belligerent thoughts at least once in a while is human nature, whether you like it or not. Nobody's perfect. Are you saying everyone who thinks of harming someone, but actually would never physically hurt someone, should be sentenced to death? I'm confused here.:doh In executing a prisoner, in turn, we are acting exactly like the murderer. How's that look to other people? And in the case of executing an innocent person, that's cold murder buddy. So, IMO the prosecutors, jury, and governor who signs the death warrant should be liable for prosecution and execution.

 

[Brutus]

Maybe I haven't made myself clear. It's not justice under the eye for an eye system. You're saying it's not the act itself, it's the thought. I highly disagree. Belligerent thoughts at least once in a while is human nature, whether you like it or not. Nobody's perfect. Are you saying everyone who thinks of harming someone, but actually would never physically hurt someone, should be sentenced to death? I'm confused here.:doh In executing a prisoner, in turn, we are acting exactly like the murderer. How's that look to other people? And in the case of executing an innocent person, that's cold murder buddy. So, IMO the prosecutors, jury, and governor who signs the death warrant should be liable for prosecution and execution.

Woah woah, one thing at a time. You said this:

Justice. If you consider that justice, than you must also consider the killing of innocents justice also, since no justice system is infallible.

and i'm not really sure where you got that from because it doesn't make sense to me.

Also, you took what I said and twisted it. I said it wasn't the act, it was the thought behind the act. Thus, a belligerent thought shouldn't be punished, because it is not backed by an action. And..

In executing a prisoner, in turn, we are acting exactly like the murderer

If you would have read the post above, you would have noticed that I adressed that exact issue.

As for your final points, no, no, and no. The jury, prosecutors, and governor are not liable for the death penalty for executing, because they did not have foul intentions behind their acts, they thought that they were serving justice by sentencing a murderer to death.

 

[kal-el]

Well... I'd like to believe that all citizens are equal under the law--and the the government should do it's best to [edit: typo] ensure that all lives have the same value. So... if you end someone's life, why should you not be put to death? Is a criminal's life worth MORE than the person who was murdered? I'd like to think they are worth the same, which is why the criminal's life should be ended. Seems like justice to me.

That's what I was responding too.:2razz: If you consider this justice, you must also accept that the state will execute innocents. Do you consider that justice? You can free an innocent person from prison, but there is no reversing an execution.

As for your final points, no, no, and no. The jury, prosecutors, and governor are not liable for the death penalty for executing, because they did not have foul intentions behind their acts, they thought that they were serving justice by sentencing a murderer to death.

Does it really matter whether they had any malice at all? Killing is the same, whether you intend to, or not, it's still wrong. The death penalty is just state-sponsered murder. If we are willing to put an innocent person to death in order to solve an "inventory" problem, we are no better than the murderers.

 

[Brutus]

That's what I was responding too.:2razz: If you consider this justice, you must also accept that the state will execute innocents. Do you consider that justice? You can free an innocent person from prison, but there is no reversing an execution.

No, executing innocents isn't justice, and I never said it was (sorry I was really confused where that was coming from, wasn't trying to belittle you). It does happen with the death penalty, and it is unfortunate, but there are problems with every justice system. [edit] Justice is when a murderer is put to death, because he terminated a life, his life should be terminated. The criminal's and the victim's life should have the same value

Does it really matter whether they had any malice at all? Killing is the same, whether you intend to, or not, it's still wrong. The death penalty is just state-sponsered murder. If we are willing to put an innocent person to death in order to solve an "inventory" problem, we are no better than the murderers.

And yes, it does matter if they had malace. I'll use my previous example again. Self defense isn't murder. Going into a store and shooting up dozens is. The act of killing isn't fundamentally wrong (as you can see by my previous examples), it is the thinking behind them. And i'm not sure what you mean by "inventory" problem. If you are suggesting that I want the death penalty to get rid of criminals--too many in prisons, you are sadly mistaken (didn't you see what I said about how rapists should be publicly humiliated, because of the humiliation caused). I want the death penalty enstated because it provides the maximum amount of justice possible (as was argued in the post you quoted).

 

[alphieb]

I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning... how under the eye for an eye system is the killing of innocents justice? Also, it isn't the act of killing that is fundamentally wrong (which you suggest by saying that we would be sending out the wrong message), it is the thought, or lack there of, behind the act. Which is also why I disagree with the last sentence of your statement: society punishing criminals by death is different than a criminal murdering.


I answered your first part above. As for your second part, there are mistakes in our current justice system, and if life is prison is worse than death isn't it less humane to imprison someone wrongfully than to execute someone wrongfully?

As for your statement about "criminals that... die anyway," I thought that punishment wasn't supposed to be about the most pain caused to the criminal, but justice.

We must have some kind law enforcement/justice or what would our society amount to. However, I think it is wrong to inflict death on someone, especially an innocent person. As far as to imprison/execute someone wrongfully, we have to rely on the jury for that decision. Mistakes could and have been made. If I was wrongfully executed and had a life sentence, yes I would want to just die.

On the flip side, the criminals that are actually guilty deserve a worthless life in prison. I don't see how killing them solves anything. It does not take back their crime or bring back someone they killed.

 

[kal-el]

No, executing innocents isn't justice, and I never said it was (sorry I was really confused where that was coming from, wasn't trying to belittle you). It does happen with the death penalty, and it is unfortunate, but there are problems with every justice system. [edit] Justice is when a murderer is put to death, because he terminated a life, his life should be terminated. The criminal's and the victim's life should have the same value

Maybe, but if they have the same value, then we are essientially the criminals, putting other people to their deaths. Of course, murderers don't have the right to take another's life, but the state does'nt either. 2 wrongs don't make a right. Life in prison costs less, and is a much better detterent. Not to mention, IMO it is worse punishment.

And yes, it does matter if they had malace. I'll use my previous example again. Self defense isn't murder. Going into a store and shooting up dozens is. The act of killing isn't fundamentally wrong (as you can see by my previous examples), it is the thinking behind them. And i'm not sure what you mean by "inventory" problem. If you are suggesting that I want the death penalty to get rid of criminals--too many in prisons, you are sadly mistaken (didn't you see what I said about how rapists should be publicly humiliated, because of the humiliation caused). I want the death penalty enstated because it provides the maximum amount of justice possible (as was argued in the post you quoted).

Ok, I agree that in the case of self-defense, if you by chance would kill someone, we shouldn't dwell on it, as long as you didn't have the intent to kill. I disagree, IMO the act of killing is fundamentaly wrong. And as I said 2 wrongs don't justify a right. Just because a criminal kills, why do we feel the need to kill to prove that killing's wrong? Kinda hypocritical if you ask me.:2razz: It's nothing but homicidal retribution.

 

[Brutus]

We must have some kind law enforcement/justice or what would our society amount to. However, I think it is wrong to inflict death on someone, especially an innocent person. As far as to imprison/execute someone wrongfully, we have to rely on the jury for that decision. Mistakes could and have been made. If I was wrongfully executed and had a life sentence, yes I would want to just die.

On the flip side, the criminals that are actually guilty deserve a worthless life in prison. I don't see how killing them solves anything. It does not take back their crime or bring back someone they killed.

And putting them in prison does take back their crime? That arguement seems pretty irrelevant here. Saying that the guilty deserve a worthless life in prison seems like blind following to me. Explain to me why a life in prison for a murderer serves justice, whereas ending that prisoners life does not?

 

[Brutus]

Maybe, but if they have the same value, then we are essientially the criminals, putting other people to their deaths. Of course, murderers don't have the right to take another's life, but the state does'nt either. 2 wrongs don't make a right. Life in prison costs less, and is a much better detterent. Not to mention, IMO it is worse punishment.

No, because in acting out of justice, the killing of a criminal is NOT WRONG. I argee with you that two wrongs do not make a right. In this case there is one wrong, and one right. Also, I think that it is very trivial for the state to dwell on the thoughts of cost, and more on justice. Also, I said this before, but punishment ISN'T about inflicting the most amount of pain on the criminal (which is actually one of your arguements against eye for an eye), but about justice. Why should we even consider putting criminals in jail because it is a worse punishment? Torture is a worse punishment, should we torture all criminals too?

Ok, I agree that in the case of self-defense, if you by chance would kill someone, we shouldn't dwell on it, as long as you didn't have the intent to kill. I disagree, IMO the act of killing is fundamentaly wrong. And as I said 2 wrongs don't justify a right. Just because a criminal kills, why do we feel the need to kill to prove that killing's wrong? Kinda hypocritical if you ask me.:2razz: It's nothing but homicidal retribution.

If you agree with my reasoning that self defense isn't murder I don't see how you can say that killing is fundamentally wrong. Those two ideas contradict eachother. Also, if you agree with me that intent is key to killing (which you did on one hand and didn't on the other), the rest of your questions would resolve themselves.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Brutus:
And Bill... I know I took the quote from the Bible, but I couldn't find a good quote from Hammurabi's law.

Also, I believe that it should be an eye for an eye, I wasn't directly talking about the death penalty--rapists, causing much humiliation, should be publicly humiliated (not put to death).

I like to solve problems. I don't think the death penalty does anything to address the causal reasons why we have murderers.

As far as the judicial system, the institutions they send people to are called the Dept. of Corrections. What are they correcting?

 

[Brutus]

I like to solve problems. I don't think the death penalty does anything to address the causal reasons why we have murderers.

As far as the judicial system, the institutions they send people to are called the Dept. of Corrections. What are they correcting?

What are they correcting is right, what problems has our current judicial system solved? There are still murders, still robberies. Crime is going up, right?

The primary objective of the judiciary branch should be to serve justice. I don't think the death penalty should have anything to do with adressing why we have murders--murders will always occur regaurdless of how many people have been "corrected." It should simply serve justice.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

What are they correcting is right, what problems has our current judicial system solved? There are still murders, still robberies. Crime is going up, right?

The primary objective of the judiciary branch should be to serve justice. I don't think the death penalty should have anything to do with adressing why we have murders--murders will always occur regaurdless of how many people have been "corrected." It should simply serve justice.

If you look at the statistics, people with higher education and people who do not live in poverty are far less likely to commit a crime than others.

 

[Donkey1499]

If you look at the statistics, people with higher education and people who do not live in poverty are far less likely to commit a crime than others.

Robert Blake? O.J. Simpson? Kobe Bryant? Darryl Strawberry? Oh, I could just go on and on......

 

[kal-el]

No, because in acting out of justice, the killing of a criminal is NOT WRONG. I argee with you that two wrongs do not make a right. In this case there is one wrong, and one right. Also, I think that it is very trivial for the state to dwell on the thoughts of cost, and more on justice. Also, I said this before, but punishment ISN'T about inflicting the most amount of pain on the criminal (which is actually one of your arguements against eye for an eye), but about justice. Why should we even consider putting criminals in jail because it is a worse punishment? Torture is a worse punishment, should we torture all criminals too?

How is it 1 wrong, and 1 right? Who the hell gave us authority to play "God"? Who gave us the authority to take someones life coldy, in a premeditated, organized fashion? Why is it trivial for the state to dwell on the costs? Money makes the world go round.:2razz: Death sentence appeals clog our justice system. What are you saying that I am about inflicting punishment? Prison is not all about punishment, it is about salvation and rehabilitation, and seperating criminals from society.

If you agree with my reasoning that self defense isn't murder I don't see how you can say that killing is fundamentally wrong. Those two ideas contradict eachother. Also, if you agree with me that intent is key to killing (which you did on one hand and didn't on the other), the rest of your questions would resolve themselves.

How do they condradict eachother? Killing is wrong. Even self-defense killing is wrong if you harbor the intent to kill. But if you kill in self-defense,and didn't mean to kill, only inflict the least possible damage, then I'd say its understandable. You seem to be attempting to show to everyone on this forum that you indeed found some "huge mistake" on my posts, which you didn't.:lol:

We are among the 11 countries that still employ the death penalty. It seems that we are in the company of such good humanitarian prospects such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait, Bangladesh, Egypt, Singapore, Yemen, China and Vietnam.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=127&scid=30