Is an eye for an eye compensation a just punishment?

Topic:
U.S. Political Debates

18 Contributors
in this discussion.

Yes
33% of users

  • I think an eye for an eye is appropriate because it might teach people how others feel about what they do.

    If you do something to someone, you may not realize the physical or emotional impact until it's done back to you. After that, you would be able to empathize and will probably be deterred from doing it to anyone again.

    Yes darcyska

  • No, I disagree with the statement, "eye for an eye", because there is much more that needs to be considered before one thinks that irrationally.

    There are many things that need to be looked into as to why people do certain things. "Eye for an eye" is not only barbaric, but it is irrational. When an act is committed, people should not only consider the motive, but also the background of the person who committed the offense. Fighting violence with violence is never the answer.

    Yes StellaH

  • I agree with an eye for an eye compensation as a just punishment, manners as our ancestors have taught us to treat others as you wish to be treated.

    Our ancestors have taught us to treat others as we would like to be treated, as well as the justice system. It is unfair to commit a crime without a consequence. Therefore the term an eye for an eye, if you choose to steal something you will be required to deal with the consequence. It is the only way to teach and learn lessons.

    Yes 5hunCar

  • No, an eye for an eye is not just punishment, because we live in a civilized society. We are not barbarians.

    An eye for an eye punishment has no place in modern society, because we have other effective, less cruel ways of dealing with criminals. We can throw them in prison, make them do community service,hit them in the wallet with fines and penalties or send them to anger management classes. All of those options are effective punishments and treatments.

    Yes labusy

  • I completely believe in Hammurabi's "eye for an eye" method.

    I firmly believe that more people were punished in the same way that the crime was committed, they would think twice before doing it. No one wants to lose their fingers (or even just have their fingers bound) for stealing. No man would want to have his penis tortured for raping a woman. I definitely think more people would think before acting if this was put into place.

    Yes OIi0IymPic

  • I think than "an eye for an eye" is the oldest and best punishment.

    An eye for an eye is one of the oldest theories about appropriate criminal punishment, and has remained in our modern sayings, because it resonates with so many people. It really can be the best way to punish someone, because instead of just sitting in jail, they actively learn what they did to someone else, or how they made someone else feel or hurt. Unfortunately, I do not think you can always enact this kind of punishment, because in a situation like murdering a child, or stealing something unique, how can you do the same thing to someone else? But, in situations where it is applicable, I think it can be the best way to teach someone a lesson that they will actually remember.

    Yes lachercheuse
Voice Your Opinion
No
67% of users

  • An eye for an eye compensation is not a just punishment because it makes the victim as cruel as the criminal.

    If the laws were set that made "an eye for an eye" the punishment, the victim would then become the aggressor, and it could change how they interact with the rest of the world. For example, if a man mugged a woman on a city street and he stabbed her during the crime, then by eye for an eye logic, she would not only mug him back, but stab him as well. Once she had stabbed him, a violent, potentially fatal act, it would have the potential to give a taste for violence that could affect other innocent people who were never involved in the original crime. It is better to let the courts punish the offender to protect the victim.

    No BouncyWalter37

  • I don't believe that eye for an eye is a just punishment, because it does not take into account any extenuating circumstances.

    Eye for an eye is a poor punishment, because it is too simplistic. If a woman is raped, what is the eye for an eye equivalent? Does she get to then rape her rapist? That would not make any sense, nor would it be beneficial for the victim.

    No Ch4rGaI

  • Compassion and rehabilitation should rule justice, not vengeance.

    An eye for an eye attitude tends to perpetuate violence, rather than solve the underlying problems. That attitude tends to fuel most feuds, and almost every historical example of enmity between peoples and nations. Vengeance is human nature, but reacting with compassion and an eye towards problem solving can often do more good in the long run.

    No HumdrumMilo83

  • I disagree, mainly for the reason that, in reality, our judicial system is too flawed for this to be just.

    I would normally agree with eye for an eye punishment, but our current judicial system is extremely flawed. When we give people the death penalty, we eventually come out with new techniques for analyzing evidence, then go back to analyze previous cases, and then realize that we put to death many innocent people.

    No MuteNeal88

  • No, because eye for an eye punishment is impractical and immoral.

    An eye for an eye sounds like perfect justice, but it's really just a silly idea. Most cases don't allow for such a simple matching of damage and penalty. How does one take the eye of a corporation? How does one punish a man for affecting the ability of a woman to conceive and bear children? There is no obvious way to match damage and punishment in such cases.

    No LuciaL

  • Eye for an eye is unjust and illogical as it is known to lead to cyclical revenge.

    A quote from one of my favorite songs says it best, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." It was realized by many cultures thousands of years ago the the cycle of revenge continues until revenge is no longer considered a suitable repercussion. This is why justice systems are removed to a degree from the "victim". Additionally, if someone commits a crime, doing the same unto them is logically a crime as well.

    No daveyxh

  • I do not think that an eye for an eye is a just punishment because all crimes or injustices are not the same.

    I believe an eye for an eye is not a just punishment because if we were to do that for all crimes it would be a world of revenge, not justice and we would be governed by fear. We will never know the reasons why most people do what they do but some, do it to protect families and property and taking harsh actions in return is not the answer. Sometimes lessons have to be taught, but not to condone the action that was had.

    No WillowsErv

  • While sometimes an eye for an eye is a appropriate form of punishment, there are times when the situation is too complicated to make it work.

    I believe an eye for an eye is not appropriate because the reasons for why the crime was commuted may be too complex. For example, someone with a mental illness can not always control their actions or their logic for why they do what they do. They need medical help. There are too many possible exceptions to every rule, and often times people are incorrectly accused/convicted. This could cause quite a few major legal issues.

    No NiI35Kix

  • Getting payback is not what life is about people will make mistakes, but they need other people to help them up.

    If someone robbed you, it does not make sense to go and rob them just because they committed an act of dishonesty. There is a line of where the person should not be trusted because they stole. It is absurd to say pay back evil with evil. Instead, show them the right way -- the pure way -- and help them out of the hole that they dug themselves. It may sound crazy, but it will help them realize their wrong.

    No MiIYounger

  • I do not believe that affirmative action compensates for past wrongs because it only aids the people of today.

    The strict use of affirmative action does not allow companies enough leeway when evaluating applicants. Therefore, the only thing that affirmative action actually does is place less qualified individuals in open posts. Affirmative action was never intended to compensate for past wrongs. Rather, it was created to assist minorities and women to get jobs that would normally be off limits to them. Today affirmative action has gone too far beyond this original goal and is working to the detriment of companies and prospective employees across the nation. To make affirmative action a viable plan now employers should be required to use a blind interview process where the race and gender of applicants are unknown. This would insure that the most qualified candidates for the job are hired regardless of their race or gender.

    No VampireShu

  • Affirmative Action punishes current generations of non-minorities for the transgression of non-minorities against minorities.

    Affirmative action is no longer a valid need in this country. It seeks to compensate minorities for transgressions against their ancestors, by alienating and limiting the opportunities of the off-spring of the non-minorities that committed these transgressions. It is vengeance through the generations and only seeks to alienate a new race and a new generation which perpetuates the cycle of racism through time.

    No StormGra

  • It doesn't get the job done, but it's a step in the right direction.

    It would be really hard to compensate for the devastating wrongs that have been done to certain cultures. There should be some sort of effort to do so, though. The legacy of slavery, stolen land, being treated as property and displacement of a whole people can not be righted by giving some individuals a job. I truly don't think that this government is prepared to do anything near what it would take to right it's wrongs.

    No MohaI0v35
Voice Your Opinion

Related Debates

Debate Topics

 
 
Is an eye for an eye compensation a just punishment?
Top of Page
© 2010 Juggle, LLC
All Rights Reserved
Encyclopedia & Reference Resource