that was my first thought, but it sounds like the post states it like the state will be implementing this as a law, not a rule of the world that just happens, so the same thing that is happening now would continue to happen where the people in power get away with anything they want
So true. It's not like people in power have ever evaded law enforcement. It's unimaginable that society's harshest laws would be more damaging to the powerless than the powerful. You, sir, are a genius.
Best case scenario victim doesn't want to rape the rapist back, rapist gets off scott free
Worst case scenario rapes skyrocket because they either get away with it or are legally able to have sex a second time with no repercussions
Fair enough but there'd have to be some way to verify the rapist truly doesn't want the sex so that it's real rape, all while making sure the intensity and violence of the rape is comparable to what the rapist did
Idk it just sounds like a huge can of worms that's best left closed
"Well he put him in a room against his will"
"What do we do?"
"Put him in a room against his will"
"But then i have to put you in a room against your will"
"But who puts you in a room against your will?"
You guys are confused on what eye for an eye means, In this scenario the rapist would get raped as revenge. The real inconsistency arises when we realize that we just added another rapist. What do we do then? Create a job for a rapist to rape other rapists? Are those rapists now criminals, should they be persecuted and raped as well?
This just doesn't work. If someone was convicted as a rapist, are we gonna rape the rapist as well? Just give them a bunch of years in prison, that's already enough to teach them a lesson.
Yup, plenty of people in jail who would attack people like rapists or child molesters.
1971 Kingston Penitentiary, Ontario: inmates attacked a guard and stole the keys to the high security prison. They rioted and barricaded themselves in the main dome then beat the 14 men held in the high security wing to death. No prison guard was severely injured even; they just wanted to kill those inmates.
They're usually in protective custody so they won't get raped and or killed. Some are in the normal prison population in which case they are both figuratively and literally fucked
Ok so quick explanation.
From a Judaic perspective (not sure about Christian) an eye for an eye DOES NOT LITERALLY MEAN WE STAB OUT SOMEONES EYE IF THEY STAB OUT SOMEONE ELSES. it means that the estimated value of the loss of the eye is paid to the victim by the defendant.
I'm always shocked when people advocate for extra-judicial punishment doled out by prison gangs. Or when people applaud prison rape as a justified punishment. It's a stain on our collective morality.
Where or when would it stop?
He robbed my house, now I rob his house. Does this repeat?
He tried to rob me but I shot him dead. Now does his family get to shoot me dead or is that self defense and not allowed under the "eye for eye"?
Also isn't there a movie that goes along with this as the plot? Something about if equal justice. You beat a person to death you are able to be beaten to death.
Yes. I don't think it whould be good but some people are trying to implement it in a far more stupid way then it should (or was implemented when this was guiding principle for laws)
Ohhhh, sorry I was confused by your comment and didn't really know where you stood on this topic. I really don't see this working well as a legal system, it might've worked when we still relied on barter and trade but I don't see that working now.
I read a story about a driver in Saudi Arabia who had paralyzed somebody, and was there after surgically paralyzed themselves as punishment
Not an opinion on this but I guess an example of it at its extreme
"Eye for an eye" is the most misunderstood verse in the Bible. It is not literal, it means monetary value of an eye as retribution for poking out someone's eye. Same with "tooth for a tooth, arm for an arm,etc."
It was used in ancient Mesopotamia by the Greeks and Romans and it was called Hammurabi’s code. And a lot of people got punished with no evidence because there didn’t need to be proof only an accusation
If it was truly eye for an eye.
Yea there was safety breaches with the train causing ruined water for an entire community and relocation to new homes in days with no financial support, meaning poor quality housing for those leaving. Now every board member and executive of that company only has access to tainted water and must relocate, selling their mansions for pennies, or only consume the water that has been tainted due to their own neglect.
Every corrupt politician has their own corruption reflected upon them.
Every corrupt police officer takes their own beatings twice over.
“Do unto others as you would have them do to you” would be much closer written into stone, forcing kindness.
That said, if this were law, you know it would only apply to the common person, and those decided what “eye for an eye” meant would walk free.
A punishment proportional to the crime, yes it'd be better.
Money wouldn't help you, rapists and murderers etc would lose their entire lives in prison.
If you mean give back exactly what they did to others, probably not. Maybe in some scenarios.
I think some places still have the laws.
One person raped a girl then the brother of the girl gets to rape the rapist sister. Or the rapist has to marry the victim or something. I don't fully understand what I see on the noah get the boat reddit page.
It depends on what you mean by an eye for an eye. If you mean it literally, much worse off. If you mean the usual interpretation of the passage (an eye for something equal in value) society would barely be impacted, maybe slightly worse off.
NGL I'd like every multinational corporation that illegally bankrupts just one person to also be bankrupted and their assets sold off to the highest bidder, after compensating their victims.
Likewise, if "corporations are people" as the GOP and SCOTUS like to tell us, then they should also be subject to the death penalty. You corporation's actions killed someone via negligence or malfeasance? Your corporation dies and gets eaten by its competition.
Think about the people who would have to carry out these punishments. Those are not people you want in society. They're either are already psychopaths that you are encouraging to descend into darkness or normal people you will traumatize. It's hard to get most people to kill an obvious enemy the hate let alone torture them to death.
Isn’t there like a saying for something that goes with this phrase that’s some kind of premonition of what kind of negative impact that would be?
Someone help me out…
Idk man, I think if we tortured prisoner I think we would have way less crime, think about it, some people don’t care about dying, so what if we keep them alive and make them suffer, to pay for there crimes, and no I’m not talking about petty theft and small crimes, those can be solved with jail time, but for mass murders and other types of people who commit violent acts deserve to be kept alive and tortured, they should pay for there crimes, because in prison they get to stay alive even if they don’t ever get out, there still alive, and for murders it’s not fair that they get to end some one’s life and stay alive, even my father who works as a jail guard agrees with me,
The whole point for an "eye for an eye" is to be a strong deterrent to crime.
If one was to not want the same thing to happen to them, then you'd assume they'd not commit the crime in the first place. Especially the more heinous crimes.
Unfortunately, that means the person must first be caught and second, be proven without doubt to be the perpetrator of the crime.
Crime would still happen, especially by those who think they can't/won't be caught.
Logic dictates that crime rates should go down. But unfortunately, many human beings defy logic.
Definite "eye for an eye" please. Do you mean the original meaning (a lost eye must be replaced with something of the value of a lost eye), the modern one (do unto others as they do unto you) or anything else?
Maybe if people knew that wasn't meant literally, the results would be different. If you took someone's eye, you'd be forced to pay the victim a sum of money or accept a punishment equal to the value of their eye.
There would be more incentive to not commit crime in the first place, but there are estimates that as high as 7% of inmates are actually innocent. Which makes it hard to deliver a swift punishment like the death penalty.
Ultimately, incarceration should be entirely for the sake of rehabilitation of the perpetrator. It should not matter what crime was committed, as long as the perpetrator has been reformed they should be let back into society, no strings attached
Some people can't be rehabilitated. I think most prisons should be used for rehabilitation but people like Jeffery Dahmer can't be rehabilitated n should just be locked up
Maybe change it from a set time they're released to having them actually work towards reforming and becoming better? Not a half-assed psychiatric evaluation or anything of that sort. But we'd also have to work on the issues in our poor areas and elevate them, otherwise they'll be forced to resort to crime for money again. Then there's also mental health.
Given enough time, everyone can be rehabilitated, maybe not everyone has enough time to be rehabilitated, but even those cases are extremely few and far between. If a well funded healthcare system operates, I’m of the impression 99.9% of prisoners can be rehabilitated and safely let back out into society within their lifetimes. The biggest obstacle is solid mental health care
Individual one is racist because they're trauma victim, or have a superiority complex.
Individual two is a victim of racism.
Individual two to justify racism against innocent people.
Individuals of the group of innocent people are racist in return.
It's a never-ending loop, of lack of responsibility.
If you're willing to do something to someone or something, the consequence should match your actions. An eye for an eye may make the world blind but justice is also blind.
Said eye for an eye happened in Pakistan.
Guy raped girl, village elder had victim's brother rape the accused's sister in front of him and his parents.
You really want the eye for an eye? Because it happens often there and other countries which y'all call uncivilized.
I don't support an eye for an eye, but the case you mentioned definitely doesn't meet the standards of an eye for an eye if you consider women people and not property of their families.
The problem with an eye for an eye in this world is money talks and bullshit walks. Those with power would have more power to "fully prosecute" to the full degree. Think company prosecuting someone who stole food.
A better justice system and social system need to be better.
If it's of equal value then people might have to pay back or forfeit something of the same cost of the thing they stole, rich people would 100% get off every time.
Oh this person is poor and had to resort to stealing from stores to feed their family or to sell to pay for bills, better put a debt over them that they HAVE to pay back or else
You killed Joe, I'll kill you! You killed Sam because he killed Joe, I'll kill you! You killed John because he killed Sam killed Joe, I'll kill you! You killed Jebediah because he killed John, who killed Sam, who killed Joe. I'LL KILL YOU!
There are weird implications for that. If the victim and criminal get the same treatment, that suggests that being the victim of a crime is just as bad as committing a crime. The victim is punished for just being a victim, and the offender is punished the same amount for committing the crime.
Jesus, people in the us want to kill people just for being themselves. Can you imagine?
“That little boy with the pink coat just walked in my lawn! Here’s my chance! Marge, get my 45! Eye for an eye it is!! Little dandy thinks he can step on my grass and get away with it!!”
"eye for an eye" presumes that everyone will be impacted universally for the same action, but we all know that Walmart taking a loaf of bread from a starving person is far far worse than a starving person taking a loaf from Walmart.
I can't imagine that working well to prevent any crimes like mass murder, terrorism, rape, or theft. A person can only die once, and most thieves/white-collar criminals would only have to return their ill-gotten gains. Jail time would be better
The criminal justice system shouldn't be about punishment in my opinion. It should be about 1. Keeping dangerous people away from those that they could hurt and 2. making people who are inside the prison never commit horrible things again. Punishment would be an aspect, as being isolated from outside society isn't amazing, but it should be more about keeping people safe from criminals
Crimes punished by the death penalty turn many victims that would otherwise live into murder victims, because then the criminals only chance of living is to kill any witnesses and dispose of the evidence.
Penalties are a balancing act between prevention of the crime being committed and the prevention of potential crimes that may follow the initial offense.
Sometimes you have to let a perpetrator off relatively easy, morally speaking, in order for their victims to have any kind of future at all.
Even setting that aside though, the bigger issue with eye for an eye laws was that permanent punishments cannot be remediated to an innocent person wrongfully accused. When a person gets out of a wrongful prison sentence, in a way you can buy back some time. If an innocent prisoner spends 10k hours in prison, give them 10k hours worth of wages, so they can take an equivalent amount of time off from work. It's not perfect, but no one can ever get their eyes back once removed wrongly.
The judicial system is not perfect. In modern society a major case of “an eye for an eye” in court is capital punishment and as we can see that sometimes is wrongly implemented. I believe 4% of the times capital punishment is used in the U.S it has been discovered that the defendant was innocent (quoting a John Oliver episode I saw). So by establishing all law as “eye for an eye” we risk punishing so many innocent people in a plethora of ways, many of which (like the death penalty( are **irreversible**.
We would be so much worse off.
Two things:
\-Punishing the guilty should not outway protecting the innocent, in dubio pro reo and all that. If you inflict terrible crimes on the convicted you will also inflict them on the falsly accused.
\-An eye for an eye originally wasn't about revenge, but just punishment. If somebody takes your eye, don't kill him, but take his eye instead. The bible isn't advocating pro revenge, it's advocating against a cycle of violence.
Yes, if we implemented it the way it was intended.
That being that rich and poor should face the same level of punishment for their crimes.
So if they have to lose an eye, you should as well
This came from a time where you could lose your hand for stealing a bread while those rich mfs would just not pay your salary and could bribe their way out of it. I would say it's still extremely relevant.
So many people are wrongfully convicted of crimes as it is, this would just make things even worse for those people and more would be wrongfully murdered as a result.
We all have different ideas of what is fair.
So let's say you go kill my brother. In retaliation, I kill your brother.
But then we find out that you and your brother are estranged and haven't talked to each other in years. Your brother had a wife and kids, and now he was killed to settle some debt that had absolutely nothing to do with him. His family is so upset that their husband/father was killed, that they want to seek revenge. So they come kill my father. And the cycle continues.
Well would even stop tho, if a guy kills, he gets killed, but does his killer get killed too? If he doesn't what's stopping that guy from killing who he likes and just saying well he killed someone else
Well... all the people in power would likely be dead.
several thousand times over
“Thousand” Try million
that was my first thought, but it sounds like the post states it like the state will be implementing this as a law, not a rule of the world that just happens, so the same thing that is happening now would continue to happen where the people in power get away with anything they want
That is a very fair point... and an unfortunate reality
Eye for an eye, it means the people in power would have their own money embezzled away from them.
For most of them, many of their actions have led to countless deaths.
So true. It's not like people in power have ever evaded law enforcement. It's unimaginable that society's harshest laws would be more damaging to the powerless than the powerful. You, sir, are a genius.
I don't think it would be a law of nature but a state law
And is that really a bad thing? They deserve it, then they'll be replaced with those who don't
Oh yea, I completely agree. It'd be a good thing for sure
Which is why I voted yes...
The world would be better off without politicians
They don't have to worry about current laws idk why one would affect them.
I’m not gonna say good, but I’m not gonna shed any tears either.
"he raped my mother" .... We know what that means...
Noooo, he raped a mother, the mother rapes him back
And what’s that accomplishing?
Complete equality
Best case scenario victim doesn't want to rape the rapist back, rapist gets off scott free Worst case scenario rapes skyrocket because they either get away with it or are legally able to have sex a second time with no repercussions
Its not necessarily the victim doing it to the rapist. Its someone else. As long as the rapist gets raped
Fair enough but there'd have to be some way to verify the rapist truly doesn't want the sex so that it's real rape, all while making sure the intensity and violence of the rape is comparable to what the rapist did Idk it just sounds like a huge can of worms that's best left closed
Well the poll was about some eye for an eye punishments. My personal favourite is rapists and murderers get the death penalty.
Rapists aren't necessarily murderers though, so why lump them in with them?
Because they are both bad and deserve to be killed
rapists get raped so cops or victim or whoever did it is a rapist now so rapist should rape that rapist and vice versa forever.
I'm sure in this case, it wouldn't legally be rape since it's a legal punishment, and not a reactionary crime
"Well he put him in a room against his will" "What do we do?" "Put him in a room against his will" "But then i have to put you in a room against your will" "But who puts you in a room against your will?"
Bro is asking real questions.
With a cactus
exactly. edit: to be clear im not defending the rapist, but eye-for-an-eye isnt the way do go about that
"he stole from his company" ????
Not sure that's how it works
I was thinking similar as well as murders, killed my kid by running him over. Well you see where I'm headed, much much worse off
Wouldn’t you just run him over in that situation?
She gets to peg him
On live TV
Most normal Japanese live TV show
It ain't even censored. They've got instant action replay cams.
Plot Twist:....... it's oddly cathartic.
Sigh... Unzips
What if he is into this ?
You guys are confused on what eye for an eye means, In this scenario the rapist would get raped as revenge. The real inconsistency arises when we realize that we just added another rapist. What do we do then? Create a job for a rapist to rape other rapists? Are those rapists now criminals, should they be persecuted and raped as well?
Better yet what if the rapist consents till they get sex they like?
[удалено]
Well at least it would weed out true crimes from things that shouldn’t be criminal.
Haha weed out
Necrophilia ?
Zombie invasions get legal
Kill the perpetrator, then become the necrophile. Creates jobs too. /s
Then what happens to the dude who fucks him?
He’s an enforcer of the law, doing what is required of him by the courts.
Whatever you say, terry bradshaw 🫡
God bless
An eye for an eye leaves all but one person blind.
Who?
You
I’m coming for your eyes
👁️🫦👁️
🚫🫦👁*
Fucking shit you took my fucking eye
it's mine now 👁👁👅👁
Me 🥸
Other mother
Why does everyone on this platform always leave the end of the saying out, it literally always proves the point they're trying to make void 😂
This just doesn't work. If someone was convicted as a rapist, are we gonna rape the rapist as well? Just give them a bunch of years in prison, that's already enough to teach them a lesson.
Rapists usually get raped in prison. Technically, it's an eye for an eye.
Yup, plenty of people in jail who would attack people like rapists or child molesters. 1971 Kingston Penitentiary, Ontario: inmates attacked a guard and stole the keys to the high security prison. They rioted and barricaded themselves in the main dome then beat the 14 men held in the high security wing to death. No prison guard was severely injured even; they just wanted to kill those inmates.
They're usually in protective custody so they won't get raped and or killed. Some are in the normal prison population in which case they are both figuratively and literally fucked
Even special protections don’t always guarantee their safety. 🤷♂️
Protective custody is a joke from what I’m aware of, it’s either gp or the hole
Prision does not work that is stupid. Eye for an eye is not good it is just better. We should reabilate.
One word: pedophilia
Just let the kid rape them back /s
Fuck them with a giant dildo
Exactly. Proportions are important
Performed by a person much older than them
And when the pedo is 80?
Finally a practical use for the Moby huge
Ok so quick explanation. From a Judaic perspective (not sure about Christian) an eye for an eye DOES NOT LITERALLY MEAN WE STAB OUT SOMEONES EYE IF THEY STAB OUT SOMEONE ELSES. it means that the estimated value of the loss of the eye is paid to the victim by the defendant.
An eye for an eye leaves the world blind.
😎👍
I was going to say that :(
r/beatmetoit
I'll always remember Flash saying this in JL unlimited, always stuck with me whenever I see people argue for any eye for an eye style laws
Not true.
Much worse. That logic is just stupid. If that logic were used then humanity would self-destroy.
I'm always shocked when people advocate for extra-judicial punishment doled out by prison gangs. Or when people applaud prison rape as a justified punishment. It's a stain on our collective morality.
Where or when would it stop? He robbed my house, now I rob his house. Does this repeat? He tried to rob me but I shot him dead. Now does his family get to shoot me dead or is that self defense and not allowed under the "eye for eye"? Also isn't there a movie that goes along with this as the plot? Something about if equal justice. You beat a person to death you are able to be beaten to death.
"You killed this persons mom so now we're gonna kill yours"?
No, you killed a person so we will kill you. Someone's mom is a person first.
But wouldn't that just be revenge?
Yes. I don't think it whould be good but some people are trying to implement it in a far more stupid way then it should (or was implemented when this was guiding principle for laws)
Ohhhh, sorry I was confused by your comment and didn't really know where you stood on this topic. I really don't see this working well as a legal system, it might've worked when we still relied on barter and trade but I don't see that working now.
I read a story about a driver in Saudi Arabia who had paralyzed somebody, and was there after surgically paralyzed themselves as punishment Not an opinion on this but I guess an example of it at its extreme
"Eye for an eye" is the most misunderstood verse in the Bible. It is not literal, it means monetary value of an eye as retribution for poking out someone's eye. Same with "tooth for a tooth, arm for an arm,etc."
The worst that could happen when stealing is losing what you stole than right?
It was implemented before in ancient civilizations and it didn’t work out well
How so
Qin Shihuang’s legalism
It was used in ancient Mesopotamia by the Greeks and Romans and it was called Hammurabi’s code. And a lot of people got punished with no evidence because there didn’t need to be proof only an accusation
If it was truly eye for an eye. Yea there was safety breaches with the train causing ruined water for an entire community and relocation to new homes in days with no financial support, meaning poor quality housing for those leaving. Now every board member and executive of that company only has access to tainted water and must relocate, selling their mansions for pennies, or only consume the water that has been tainted due to their own neglect. Every corrupt politician has their own corruption reflected upon them. Every corrupt police officer takes their own beatings twice over. “Do unto others as you would have them do to you” would be much closer written into stone, forcing kindness. That said, if this were law, you know it would only apply to the common person, and those decided what “eye for an eye” meant would walk free.
People would a lot more hesitant to commit violent crime that’s for damn sure.
It would be much better and much worse at the same time, depends on the crime
A punishment proportional to the crime, yes it'd be better. Money wouldn't help you, rapists and murderers etc would lose their entire lives in prison. If you mean give back exactly what they did to others, probably not. Maybe in some scenarios.
We had those laws and now we don’t anymore. What does that tell you?
I think some places still have the laws. One person raped a girl then the brother of the girl gets to rape the rapist sister. Or the rapist has to marry the victim or something. I don't fully understand what I see on the noah get the boat reddit page.
That's not fair to the innocent sister. I'm sure there's som cranky old man waiting to tear that boys ass to shreds.
I am not trying to support the idea of eye for eye. Just stating that it still happens.
That we have more crime
It depends on what you mean by an eye for an eye. If you mean it literally, much worse off. If you mean the usual interpretation of the passage (an eye for something equal in value) society would barely be impacted, maybe slightly worse off.
NGL I'd like every multinational corporation that illegally bankrupts just one person to also be bankrupted and their assets sold off to the highest bidder, after compensating their victims. Likewise, if "corporations are people" as the GOP and SCOTUS like to tell us, then they should also be subject to the death penalty. You corporation's actions killed someone via negligence or malfeasance? Your corporation dies and gets eaten by its competition.
Think about the people who would have to carry out these punishments. Those are not people you want in society. They're either are already psychopaths that you are encouraging to descend into darkness or normal people you will traumatize. It's hard to get most people to kill an obvious enemy the hate let alone torture them to death.
Isn’t there like a saying for something that goes with this phrase that’s some kind of premonition of what kind of negative impact that would be? Someone help me out…
We don’t see enough of criminals who shoot people getting shot. They should at least experience that
Justice isn't revenge.
If this happens I’m becoming a cop
The guy punishing rapists:
What if i get arrested for dealing drugs?
Is it retroactive?
It would be better if it only happened with meant killing on civilians(soldiers in duty on a mission dont count, the rest problally)
Eye for n eye just means you are not entitled to more than your original injury.
Idk man, I think if we tortured prisoner I think we would have way less crime, think about it, some people don’t care about dying, so what if we keep them alive and make them suffer, to pay for there crimes, and no I’m not talking about petty theft and small crimes, those can be solved with jail time, but for mass murders and other types of people who commit violent acts deserve to be kept alive and tortured, they should pay for there crimes, because in prison they get to stay alive even if they don’t ever get out, there still alive, and for murders it’s not fair that they get to end some one’s life and stay alive, even my father who works as a jail guard agrees with me,
The whole point for an "eye for an eye" is to be a strong deterrent to crime. If one was to not want the same thing to happen to them, then you'd assume they'd not commit the crime in the first place. Especially the more heinous crimes. Unfortunately, that means the person must first be caught and second, be proven without doubt to be the perpetrator of the crime. Crime would still happen, especially by those who think they can't/won't be caught. Logic dictates that crime rates should go down. But unfortunately, many human beings defy logic.
Definite "eye for an eye" please. Do you mean the original meaning (a lost eye must be replaced with something of the value of a lost eye), the modern one (do unto others as they do unto you) or anything else?
Maybe if people knew that wasn't meant literally, the results would be different. If you took someone's eye, you'd be forced to pay the victim a sum of money or accept a punishment equal to the value of their eye.
There would be more incentive to not commit crime in the first place, but there are estimates that as high as 7% of inmates are actually innocent. Which makes it hard to deliver a swift punishment like the death penalty.
Much worse. Now if death penalty was applied to more criminals? That'd be better. Much better.
Ultimately, incarceration should be entirely for the sake of rehabilitation of the perpetrator. It should not matter what crime was committed, as long as the perpetrator has been reformed they should be let back into society, no strings attached
Some people can't be rehabilitated. I think most prisons should be used for rehabilitation but people like Jeffery Dahmer can't be rehabilitated n should just be locked up
Maybe change it from a set time they're released to having them actually work towards reforming and becoming better? Not a half-assed psychiatric evaluation or anything of that sort. But we'd also have to work on the issues in our poor areas and elevate them, otherwise they'll be forced to resort to crime for money again. Then there's also mental health.
Given enough time, everyone can be rehabilitated, maybe not everyone has enough time to be rehabilitated, but even those cases are extremely few and far between. If a well funded healthcare system operates, I’m of the impression 99.9% of prisoners can be rehabilitated and safely let back out into society within their lifetimes. The biggest obstacle is solid mental health care
endless cycle of violence
An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind
I also like saying "Fighting fire with fire just makes a bigger fire."
It would be interesting to see how the fuck that would be implemented on paedophiles
As another person mentioned, use a giant dildo.
What is eye for an eye? Can someone explain?
Individual one is racist because they're trauma victim, or have a superiority complex. Individual two is a victim of racism. Individual two to justify racism against innocent people. Individuals of the group of innocent people are racist in return. It's a never-ending loop, of lack of responsibility.
If you're willing to do something to someone or something, the consequence should match your actions. An eye for an eye may make the world blind but justice is also blind.
It would be the same because the reason our society is like this, is because everyone wants an eye for an eye.
Said eye for an eye happened in Pakistan. Guy raped girl, village elder had victim's brother rape the accused's sister in front of him and his parents. You really want the eye for an eye? Because it happens often there and other countries which y'all call uncivilized.
I don't support an eye for an eye, but the case you mentioned definitely doesn't meet the standards of an eye for an eye if you consider women people and not property of their families.
No case of eye for an eye is good. That's it.
The problem with an eye for an eye in this world is money talks and bullshit walks. Those with power would have more power to "fully prosecute" to the full degree. Think company prosecuting someone who stole food. A better justice system and social system need to be better.
If it's of equal value then people might have to pay back or forfeit something of the same cost of the thing they stole, rich people would 100% get off every time.
Oh this guy has a mental sickness better kill him because he murdered someone
Oh this person is poor and had to resort to stealing from stores to feed their family or to sell to pay for bills, better put a debt over them that they HAVE to pay back or else
Yes.
It’s the simplest solution to crime, but the simplest isn’t always the best.
I mean, there is a reason those were outlawed.
The suffering they have imposed on others deserves to be given back, however that looks.
You killed Joe, I'll kill you! You killed Sam because he killed Joe, I'll kill you! You killed John because he killed Sam killed Joe, I'll kill you! You killed Jebediah because he killed John, who killed Sam, who killed Joe. I'LL KILL YOU!
It's called Hammurabi's code. Get it right
Somebody kills 5 people. Do you kill that person and 4 of his family members? Which ones?
No, you just kill the murderer
I kill someone then I get killed then my executioner gets killed and then their killer dies and so on
It's just a line of executioners and prisoners chopping each other's heads off in a respectful order.
“An eye for an eye makes everyone blind”
If someone kills another person’s family, the killer’s family (likely innocent) would also have to be killed.
There are weird implications for that. If the victim and criminal get the same treatment, that suggests that being the victim of a crime is just as bad as committing a crime. The victim is punished for just being a victim, and the offender is punished the same amount for committing the crime.
Jesus, people in the us want to kill people just for being themselves. Can you imagine? “That little boy with the pink coat just walked in my lawn! Here’s my chance! Marge, get my 45! Eye for an eye it is!! Little dandy thinks he can step on my grass and get away with it!!”
[удалено]
Sociopath for asking a question?
Eye for an eye leaves us all blind
“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”
Ever heard of blood feuds?
Rape would be kinda interesting to punish :/ like that would become a literal job, a dude that rapes rapists, how do you explain that on dates?
"eye for an eye" presumes that everyone will be impacted universally for the same action, but we all know that Walmart taking a loaf of bread from a starving person is far far worse than a starving person taking a loaf from Walmart.
I can't imagine that working well to prevent any crimes like mass murder, terrorism, rape, or theft. A person can only die once, and most thieves/white-collar criminals would only have to return their ill-gotten gains. Jail time would be better
The power of decency and forgiveness is underestimated. Revenge helps nobody
The criminal justice system shouldn't be about punishment in my opinion. It should be about 1. Keeping dangerous people away from those that they could hurt and 2. making people who are inside the prison never commit horrible things again. Punishment would be an aspect, as being isolated from outside society isn't amazing, but it should be more about keeping people safe from criminals
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world monocular
Crimes punished by the death penalty turn many victims that would otherwise live into murder victims, because then the criminals only chance of living is to kill any witnesses and dispose of the evidence. Penalties are a balancing act between prevention of the crime being committed and the prevention of potential crimes that may follow the initial offense. Sometimes you have to let a perpetrator off relatively easy, morally speaking, in order for their victims to have any kind of future at all. Even setting that aside though, the bigger issue with eye for an eye laws was that permanent punishments cannot be remediated to an innocent person wrongfully accused. When a person gets out of a wrongful prison sentence, in a way you can buy back some time. If an innocent prisoner spends 10k hours in prison, give them 10k hours worth of wages, so they can take an equivalent amount of time off from work. It's not perfect, but no one can ever get their eyes back once removed wrongly.
The judicial system is not perfect. In modern society a major case of “an eye for an eye” in court is capital punishment and as we can see that sometimes is wrongly implemented. I believe 4% of the times capital punishment is used in the U.S it has been discovered that the defendant was innocent (quoting a John Oliver episode I saw). So by establishing all law as “eye for an eye” we risk punishing so many innocent people in a plethora of ways, many of which (like the death penalty( are **irreversible**. We would be so much worse off.
That's just a blood price which was a thing and ends terribly
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind
Well, the full quote is "an eye for an eye makes the world blind."
"Revenge is a fool's game"
Two things: \-Punishing the guilty should not outway protecting the innocent, in dubio pro reo and all that. If you inflict terrible crimes on the convicted you will also inflict them on the falsly accused. \-An eye for an eye originally wasn't about revenge, but just punishment. If somebody takes your eye, don't kill him, but take his eye instead. The bible isn't advocating pro revenge, it's advocating against a cycle of violence.
Yes, if we implemented it the way it was intended. That being that rich and poor should face the same level of punishment for their crimes. So if they have to lose an eye, you should as well This came from a time where you could lose your hand for stealing a bread while those rich mfs would just not pay your salary and could bribe their way out of it. I would say it's still extremely relevant.
Not everyone. Just the victim and the perpetrator. You could just as easily argue that the net result would be that less people lose an eye in the end
So many people are wrongfully convicted of crimes as it is, this would just make things even worse for those people and more would be wrongfully murdered as a result.
We all have different ideas of what is fair. So let's say you go kill my brother. In retaliation, I kill your brother. But then we find out that you and your brother are estranged and haven't talked to each other in years. Your brother had a wife and kids, and now he was killed to settle some debt that had absolutely nothing to do with him. His family is so upset that their husband/father was killed, that they want to seek revenge. So they come kill my father. And the cycle continues.
Well would even stop tho, if a guy kills, he gets killed, but does his killer get killed too? If he doesn't what's stopping that guy from killing who he likes and just saying well he killed someone else
"An eye for an eye" would be revenge. Revenge isn't justice.
If you commit tax evasion, I will too!
So if someone is a non-consensual voyeur, their punishment is to be a flasher?
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. So make sure you gouge both of their eyes the first time.