Eye for an Eye

[Vercetti21]

I thought this could make for some interesting discussion after reading the topic in Gen Chat about the man who was sentenced to be blinded by acid in Iran.

 

Is the eye-for-an-eye strategy an effective way to hinder crime, or is it too savage to be implemented into a government against cruel and unusual punishment?

 

The eye-for-an-eye strategy to punishing criminals can have it's uses, but how could it apply in some cases? For example, a murderer would be given the death penalty, and a thief would have something valuable taken from him, but what about a rapist? Does, or should, he be raped? And by who? Slamman?

 

Another flaw in this system is torture. A guy can skin, rape, burn, and piss on his victim, but should the government deal the same consequence on him, the right against cruel and unusual punishment is entirely disregarded, whether he deserves it or not.

 

Still, it's an interesting thought. It seems that it would be impossible to implement "eye-for-an-eye" into a Western civilized society, yet it is technically 100% fair (disregarding cases in which the convicted person suffers from a mental illness) and supports the idea that everyone is equal.

 

I've got some more to say on the subject, but I'd like to hear others' opinions on this first.

[Saggy]

Honestly, I think An eye for an Eye is probably the only really effective deterrent. Currently penalties for crimes are meant to be compassionate, but they offer very little determent, because so many people just accept that they will be living in prison and get use to it. If a guy knows that if he rapes someone, he will get raped back, he might not want to do it.

 

The only problem with that ideology is that things like the death penalty don't seem to be a deterrent either. I think that once someone is actually willing to kill someone, they don't particularly care weather they get the death penalty. I'm willing to bet that a rapist would think similarly about the potential rape he will receive.

 

Point is, people desperate enough to commit these crime are probably desperate enough to bare the consequences.

[Tom Toole]

Is the eye-for-an-eye strategy an effective way to hinder crime, or is it too savage to be implemented into a government against cruel and unusual punishment?

There is no possible "eye for an eye" punishment for a terrorist who kills 3000 people. It is impossible for a serial killer to be sentenced to several deaths. It is irrational to sentence a poor thief to poverty for thieving.

 

Law: It would not go against the law because "cruel and unusual" is in relation to the crime.

Effectiveness in hindering crime: Punishment is not the only thing that deters people from killing each other, more important are the world views and the ethical values of the people.

[cacarla]

Ofcourse, "Eye for an Eye" cannot be implemented on every individual crime performed by people but that doesn't mean that you can commit crimes in which you definitely cannot be given an eye to eye treatment, right?

 

Like, let's take the example that Tom has given. A terrorist cannot be killed 3000 times for killing as many people but definitely he can be put through the torture, pain, agony that those 3000 victims have suffered. He should be pulverized to death and not let go saying that he cannot be given an eye-to-eye retaliation. Severe punishment will definitely get the backs of such low-lives straight.

[Stefan.]

What if he's found guilty of drug offences? Giving him a blunt is not exactly going to deter him from smoking marijuana or something.

[Rhoda]

What if he's found guilty of drug offences? Giving him a blunt is not exactly going to deter him from smoking marijuana or something.

It may not be as specific as that. By the logic I've seen it would be death by drugs overdose, which I presume could be pretty harrowing.

[Straznicy]

I'd say it's been tried and tested long enough for us to know it is not an effective system. That crime comes out of necessity, circumstances and environment rather than "badness" of the individual is, I think, the commonly accepted these days. So, by that basis alone it's easy to see that regardless of the punishment, people will commit the crime if they forced/compelled enough into doing so. So y'know, take a guy who can't find work, his area is totally rundown, he has a few kids... you know the story. He can sit back on benefits, hoping he eventually gets employed, and live this really hard existence watching his family struggle along. Would you really think about the legal repercussions in detail if drug dealing meant you could make things a bit better for yourself and your family?

 

Murder is very particular. I can't say anything about the USA since I haven't really looked into it, but research in my own city suggests that murders overwhelmingly occur as "random" - fights gone too far, heated emotions, self-defense etc. There's not many that are cool, calculated attacks with the pure aim of killing, yet they generally get treated as the same, and thus the penalty dished out is the same. Locking up a kid who killed a rival in a gang fight for life just seems like such a waste to me - it's not dealing with the problem, no laws or punishments do. Laws are an easy mechanism for powers to avoid actually tackling a problem. Take for example, heroin abuse. You can produce all the laws surround it's supply and use you want, you can lock away all the dealers, drug lords (although of course they won't, so long as they stay on side) and addicts you want; none of that is going to stop people using heroin at a fairly consistent level. We should be tackling the root of the problem, and that goes for all crimes. Instead of asking where the dope is coming from, we should be asking why do people feel they need to turn to highly addictive and dangerous substances, and how we can tackle that.

 

In short, tell that guy the result of murder is having the rest of your life taken away, the result of stealing is having years stolen or that rape means he'll get raped in jail. It's not going to work, because the incentive to commit is always going to be greater.

[cacarla]

In short, tell that guy the result of murder is having the rest of your life taken away, the result of stealing is having years stolen or that rape means he'll get raped in jail. It's not going to work, because the incentive to commit is always going to be greater.

Or even harsher than that. I know it can't get worse than that but the punishment should be like hell experienced on earth. Also, you guys must have come across the news that 5 innocent guys were brutally shot dead in Chicago by some mob/gang. Now, what do you say about that? Just let the accused spend their sick lives in jail? Remember, those 5 guys were students..

[Omnia sunt Communia]

I believe in letting the crime fit the punishment, rather than an eye for an eye. The problem with an eye for an eye is that we become just as the bad as the person we're punishing.

[Tom Toole]

Ofcourse, "Eye for an Eye" cannot be implemented on every individual crime performed by people but that doesn't mean that you can commit crimes in which you definitely cannot be given an eye to eye treatment, right?

 

Like, let's take the example that Tom has given. A terrorist cannot be killed 3000 times for killing as many people but definitely he can be put through the torture, pain, agony that those 3000 victims have suffered. He should be pulverized to death and not let go saying that he cannot be given an eye-to-eye retaliation. Severe punishment will definitely get the backs of such low-lives straight.

I feel like the point is being missed. Life is more than just feeling, killing is more than just hurting someone. A life is a life.

 

I think eye for an eye is used, with skewed proportions akin to PPP, in military situations. So when terrorists attack american soldiers and civilians, the US responds by killing non-american soldiers and civilians multiplying by ten.

 

The strange thing is that it won't "straighten the back of low-lives" - and what about historical wrongs? or wrongs by the government or at the government? When a black man clamours over the historical wrong of enslavement, what is the eye-for-an-eye punishment that is adequate? Should all white men be poor?

 

Revenge is not justice, nor can it be.

 

The opium wars were basically over the western world refusing to stop selling drugs to china. What is the eye-for-an-eye punishment? Should China sell drugs to the western world?

 

Eye-for-an-eye justice is fundamentally irrational.

[Quadropheniac90]

I didn't read through all posts here, but my opinion is that murderers who murder for fun, or for any other reason than self-defence, or rapists, or child rapists/pedos, should get one of their balls shot off, they can decide themselves which one. And then they should be hung in the street to discourage others from doing similiar crimes.

 

OK, not the last bit I guess but I certainly think those kind of people should be taken from society and never get any chance to return. The death penalty could work for that. It's cheap and clean if it needs to be. No jailing costs and such.

 

Also, I don't think eye-for-an-eye justice is right, but certainly extreme measures like death penalty are. Though I would not have a man who shoots the rapist of his daughter arrested, I would give him a f*cking medal.

[Struff Bunstridge]

I think 'eye for an eye' is being taken a little too literally by some people here, particularly in terms of drugs, where it's not really relevant, and I'd go as far as to suggest that some people are just being f*cking irritating by nitpicking at that point. Does the concept even apply anywhere other than murder, and possibly rape? I'm not sure it does.

[cacarla]

 

Does the concept even apply anywhere other than murder, and possibly rape? I'm not sure it does.

That's the areas we are talking about, Struff.

 

 

Also, I don't think eye-for-an-eye justice is right, but certainly extreme measures like death penalty are. Though I would not have a man who shoots the rapist of his daughter arrested, I would give him a f*cking medal.

 

That's what is called eye-to an-eye, mate. As all of you know, 'Rape' is the end of the life for a girl. It is almost as good as killing her. So, when the victim's father shoots the accused, it's the right kind of punishment that can be handed over to him. It's eye-to an-eye in the sense that " you rape my daughter, i'll kill you" Both are severe and level-headed.