Is "An Eye for an Eye" the best justice?

[Argus]

Barbaric? In some cases, yes, but it's hard to really say that an eye for an eye mightn't be justice in the case of violent offenders who willingly injure other people.

An eye for an eye is as old as the bible, and probably much older. It was a simplistic attempt to measure how much harm someone has caused to another, and then cause the same harm back again. Justice.

Examine two cases this week in Ontario. In one case a woman drove her car through a crowd of people, then turned around and did it again. Her sentence was seven years. However, we all know that 2/3rds is the most you can normally serve, and that you can get parole after 1/3, so in all likelihood she will serve no more than 2-3 years. One of her victims was left a quadripalegic, and brain damaged. I wonder if he believes justice was done. In 2-3 years she will be out, having served her debt to society, in the eyes of the court. Has justice truly been done to this man, whose life is, for all intents and purposes, over?

In a second case a man took a liking to the diamond capped teeth of a teenager at a house party. He tried to take them at gunpoint. When the teenager turned and ran he shot him in the back - in the spine, paralyzing him below the shoulders, for life. Then he pried the teeth out and strolled away. He got 3 years, which means at most he'll serve 2, and quite possibly only 1. Meanwhile, the kid is condemend to spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair.

Kind of makes you wonder about the barbaric concept of an eye for an eye, don't it? I mean, it's very hard to argue, in these cases, that the ancient custom didn't contain more justice than our modern, enlightened form.

If I was in a wheelchair for life I'd be more than a little pissed off that the guy who shot me was out partying and enjoying life two or three years later.

I think I'd want to put a bullet in his spine.

[Cartman]

Barbaric? In some cases, yes, but it's hard to really say that an eye for an eye mightn't be justice in the case of violent offenders who willingly injure other people.

Lex talionis would be difficult to implement because you will always have problems with individual cases. For example, what are we to do with a member of a First Nation who was continually molested by a religious leader, physically and mentally abused by teachers, mistreated by his family, turns to alcohol and then ends up a violent individual?

What about someone like Andrea Yates who killed her children? There was evidence of psychological problems here as well. Did she know right from wrong or not?

It would have to be consistent.

My concern about such a punishment system is that you might have errors (the wrong person) or there would be appeal after appeal to the extent that the victim is further victimized. In the US, it seems that those on death row get an incredible number of appeals which take time and big $$. Might it not be better to just make them rot in jail and suffer longer? I wonder which is more "barbaric"?

[The Terrible Sweal]

In Plato's Republic, Socrates deals with the issue of eye-for-an-eye style 'justice'. Basically, he suggests that it is wasteful.

[PocketRocket]

Eye think eye have had too much coffee this morning.

Eye always get a bit silly with my posts when eye do that.

Seriously, eye-for-an-eye is something that is a bit barbaric and extreme, in my view.

It is also irreversible. In the case of a wrongful conviction, like the case of Guy Paul Moran, this would not be a good thing.

But I would push for more severe penalties in cases involving serious injury or death.

I would also like to see the penal system re-introduce labour as part of the sentence. Hell, we could set up factories involving prisoners as the labour. It would help offset some of the cost of the penal system. Might even turn a profit, if run properly.

In addition, it would tech a lesson to some of the convicts, ie; no such thing as a free lunch.

TANSTAAFL

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

'An eye for an eye' is practiced today by 'those brutal muslims' you always refer to. There are cases when I wonder about whether it would be a good thing or not. There are some websites, like Ogrish, where you can watch some of these executions. In one case, two men (In an Arabic country) were convicted of raping a girl. The two men were chained to posts near a wall, and the family of the girl were given AK47s and allowed to shoot the rapists. (Not all Muslim countries stone the girl to death for 'dishonouring the family'). While it was interesting, retribution killings like this are quite disturbing, especially when they are public. Mind you, it could lead to an overall decrease in crime.

[August1991]

Mind you, it could lead to an overall decrease in crime.

To use your example above Thelonious, I think more often it leads to fatalism. Who really knows if the accused are truly guilty? The evidence was never tested in any scientific way. This is justice by random decision. Luck decides.

In Plato's Republic, Socrates deals with the issue of eye-for-an-eye style 'justice'. Basically, he suggests that it is wasteful.

I have to agree.

We don't punish criminals because of some notion of "justice". We punish them as a deterrent for others.

If I drive home drunk and hurt no one, should I not be punished?

If I steal a thousand dollars from you, should you get to take a thousand dollars from me?

If the penalty for rape is capital punishment, how do they punish murder?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Examining the Effect of Executions on Murder in Texas. Authors John Sorenson, Robert Wrinkle, Victoria Brewer, and James Marquart examined executions in Texas between 1984 and 1997. They speculated that if a deterrent effect were to exist, it would be found in Texas because of the high number of death sentences and executions within the state. Using patterns in executions across the study period and the relatively steady rate of murders in Texas, the authors found no evidence of a deterrent effect. The study concluded that the number of executions was unrelated to murder rates in general, and that the number of executions was unrelated to felony rates. (45 Crime and Delinquency 481-93 (1999)).

It seems that 'murder for murder' does not serve as an effective deterrent.

I will, however, give my very own statistic on how capital punishment directly reduces crime: No person who has been executed has ever gone on to re-offend.

Who really knows if the accused are truly guilty? The evidence was never tested in any scientific way. This is justice by random decision. Luck decides.

Wrongful conviction is indeed a worry, even when only constituting less than 0.1% of capital cases. Perhaps in these instances, we could follow Ralph Klein's advice and; "Shoot, Shovel and Shut up".

If I steal a thousand dollars from you, should you get to take a thousand dollars from me?

Seems fair. In our society, and in Hugo's 'anarchist utopia'. It would be wrong to take more.

[The Terrible Sweal]

No person who has been executed has ever gone on to re-offend.

If I recall correctly, a very small proportion of offenders who serve a life sentence go on to re-offend in terms of serious crime anyway.

[WageSlave]

I don't find the concept of doing to other that which you can prove they would do to you all that barbaric. It's just clearly ignorant in the current conditions where minorities are executed in unproportianate numbers.

I'm not against the execution of the owners of big insurance companies.

[Digby]

The Bible tells us in the future we will see the results of this type of criminal justice system .

As Christ according to scripture will rule with a Rod of Iron , which i assume means very strictly , but also with good fair judgements .

But there will be a great advantage in them days as the evil lieing twisting spirit world will be locked up . And also all men will know truth.

Eye for an eye is the way , but in this society it would need to administered in a very cautious way . as demon influenced men very often find themselfs in positions of power . There is alot who would lie ,and lie and lie as witnesses . You could very often get innocent men so we would have to be cautous .

But in cases where guilt is without question , yes public exacution is the way to go , for a serrious offender such as a serial killer . And you don't beat around the bush for 30 years . if they are guilty without a doubt .get it over with and save tax payers some money of feeding them.

I also think crooked polititions , crooked judges . our any body that has recieved the trust of the public should recieve alot stiffer penalties.

Fisheries beuracrates that have witnessed declines in fish stocks in their management should also at least be fired .

crooked fisherman should be removed from the fishery once proven abusive .

Yes lets get a rod of Iron ,,but lets keep it fair .I do have a real worry that evil men would be holding the rod and it does scare me .

Our society is falling into the gutter from lack of punishment for crime , but also we have a problem with crooked evil men in positions of power . so i don't know if we are in a fixable situation.

I guess we just got to pray for thy Kingdom come

[The Terrible Sweal]

The Bible teaches us that God commanded Ezekiel to eat cow dung. This means that Canadians must accept that dogs and cats are incarnate angels sent to Earth to resist Satanic impulses.

In Maccabees 1:1 Jesus' will is made clear. God hates. Grow up and breathe.

[Digby]

I don't have a maccabees in my book .

And i guess i got different 10 commandments .

and alot of scriptures different .

the one i like is when they say not to bable like the pagans .

I looked it up in mine it said not to use reputitious prayer like the heathen do .

you think the translators would know which is right .

Don't bable like a Pagan ?

0r?

Don't use repetitous Prayer like a Heathen ?

i guess catholics wanted to use reputitous prayers

And my 10 commandments , says not to make graven immages as the second command .

but the catholics dropped that .

They split the 10 Command in 2 . They now have 2 commands not to covet . I guess they wanted to keep their statues .

[The Terrible Sweal]

Geez! Who wrote YOUR Bible!?

Check out Acts 17:3 and Malachi 4:6. I think you'll see how important wagering in the Temple is to obtain the Sacrament of the Hound.

[Digby]

Ok Terrible swoll , You WIn i'll throw my bible out and never read it again .

I'll only read the book of the terible swoll , You will be my leader. So now im a happy athiest any im at your service .

Please tell me what to do my beloved cult leader .

[The Terrible Sweal]

excellen. I have vry simple requiremets for followers: in fact, its just two words. as it says in the gospel of Mary Magdalene -- Send Money.

[Digby]

Can i Send Fish?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Sure, as long as you send loaves too.

[WageSlave]

I don't have a maccabees in my book .

And i guess i got different 10 commandments .

and alot of scriptures different .

the one i like is when they say not to bable like the pagans .

I looked it up in mine it said not to use reputitious prayer like the heathen do .

you think the translators would know which is right .

Don't bable like a Pagan ?

0r?

Don't use repetitous Prayer like a Heathen ?

i guess catholics wanted to use reputitous prayers

And my 10 commandments , says not to make graven immages as the second command .

but the catholics dropped that .

They split the 10 Command in 2 . They now have 2 commands not to covet . I guess they wanted to keep their statues .

So I'd imagine you reject scientific and factual evidence, it's people like you that get me thinking Stalin was not a bad guy.

[Digby]

maccabee is in catholic bibles , but not every body elses .

most beleave its not inspired .

terrible swell is just playing with us anyway ,,, really don't like religous debate . just likes to play

[The Terrible Sweal]

I love religious debate! What could be more enlightening and productive than an argument revolving around highly subjective, totally unverifiable interpretations of archaic writings?

Dig in!

[August1991]

excellen. I have vry simple requiremets for followers: in fact, its just two words. as it says in the gospel of Mary Magdalene -- Send Money.

Will you accept cow dung? It's better than money because it's edible.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Handled correctly, it's also got high liquidity.

[Charles Anthony]

Justice and punishment of crime are a peculiar animals. Personally, I find them to be very confusing mainly because everybody has a different appreciation for the effects of crime. It is easy to raise many irreconcilable questions.

In Plato's Republic, Socrates deals with the issue of eye-for-an-eye style 'justice'. Basically, he suggests that it is wasteful.

I have to agree.

I think it also does not provide enough answers.

We don't punish criminals because of some notion of "justice". We punish them as a deterrent for others.

What if we can not successfully deter others with our punishments?

If I drive home drunk and hurt no one, should I not be punished?

No, you should not be punished if you do not hurt anyone.

Even if you did hurt someone, how should you be punished to deter others???

Taking away your driver's license could do it.

Preventing you from drinking could do it.

What if you got into a drunken car accident and paralyzed pedestrians? An eye-for-an-eye could say you should be paralyzed too. Should you be paralyzed surgically or by being struck by a car too??

What if you got into a drunken car accident and paralyzed pedestrians but also got paralyzed too? An eye-for-an-eye could say we should call it even. Is that fair??

What if you got into a drunken car accident and paralyzed pedestrians but you died in your own crime? What does an eye-for-an-eye have to say???

If the penalty for rape is capital punishment, how do they punish murder?

If a criminal had a martyr complex, capital punishment would not be a punishment at all.

The criminal-martyr may think he was getting a free pass to Heaven instead. Suicide bombers come to mind.

If I steal a thousand dollars from you, should you get to take a thousand dollars from me?

Seems fair. In our society, and in Hugo's 'anarchist utopia'. It would be wrong to take more.

Wrong. It could certainly be fair to take more.

The value of that thousand dollars to me is not likely to be the same as it is to you. [That is one of the reasonings being which we have tax brackets.] This is also where the anarchist concept of justice being a negotiation arises.

You might be a millionaire.

I might have been depending on that thousand dollars to pay my rent but unfortunately, I have been evicted and I am out on the street.

Also, I have difficulty understanding the concept of "victim impact statements" used in determining sentences. If a victim of crime has absolutely no friends and no family, should a criminals sentence be different????

To make matters even more confusing, some people forgive.

[Renegade]

We don't punish criminals because of some notion of "justice". We punish them as a deterrent for others.

I think there is more than one reason we punish criminals:

1. Deterrence

2. Retribution

3. Rehibilitation

4. Restitution

Punishments generally must satisify one or more of the above to various degrees.

If I drive home drunk and hurt no one, should I not be punished?

The logic for punishing someone for driving drunk but hurting no one, is the same as punishing someone for posessing a banned firearm even though they don't shoot anyone.

In essence the logic is that by driving drunk they are a threat to others, and being a threat is in essence a form of violence or assault on others. So, assault being a criminal act, should be punished.

[Renegade]

If I steal a thousand dollars from you, should you get to take a thousand dollars from me?

Seems fair. In our society, and in Hugo's 'anarchist utopia'. It would be wrong to take more.

Wrong. It could certainly be fair to take more.

The value of that thousand dollars to me is not likely to be the same as it is to you.

Disagree Charles. It is true that $1000 may have different worth to different people, however if the $1000 meant a lot to the perpetrator, then confiscating $1000 would mean an equally large loss to the perpetrator. This is just retribution for the act committed. It does not matter if the $1000 meant less to the victim than the perpetrator.

In addition to returning the $1000, for retribution and restitiution, the perpetrator should have additional penalty applied for the original transgression (for deterrence ).