Should we bring back the "eye for an eye?"?

Question

Are you familiar with The Code of Hammurabi, or the Draconian Laws?

Do you know how law and order was kept in The South, or the Wild West?

If we are in a war on terrorism, are we moving toward the rule of martial law for all in the U.S. and the U.K.?

Answer 1

Not exactly, but I think that in cases where a perp is convicted not only beyond a resonable doubt, but beyond all scientific and forensic doubt, they should receive the same punishment as they inflicted on their victim AND it should take place IMMEDIATELY after the gavel falls. Beating for beating, rape for rape, shooting for shooting, stabbing for stabbing, etc.

Answer 2

There might be a misunderstanding of the significance of the concept of "an eye for an eye" as it is represented in the Code of Hammurabi.

Hammurabi's Code is respected by political and historical scholars, not for the harshness of the penalties it legislated, but rather for the manner in which it sought to control excessive brutality in people's lust for vengeance.

When we think of the Code's insistance of an eye for an eye, it would be better if we thought of it as saying "No more than an eye for an eye". What made Hammurabi's Code so remarkable was the notion that punishment was not the same thing as vengeance, nor should it be meted out in a spirit of righteous indignation.

Thousands of years ago, Hammurabi recognised that punishment had both a utilitarian purpose of specific and general deterrence as well as a moral component of balancing the scales of justice. Over time, as society became less brutal, the harshness of even Hammurabi's relatively moderate code of punishments was eased. As the human race became more sensitive to cruelty, we came to realise that returning vicious cruelty with an equal degree of vicious cruelty failed logically to condemn the act as wrong.

Nevertheless, there remains a need for deterrence and we instinctively want to see suffering redressed according to some formula or calculus.

Going back to an attempt to mete out cruelty for cruelty would be retrogressive; it would institutionalise brutality, suggesting that it is acceptable under some circumstances. Most civilised people now find brutal cruelty unacceptable under any circumstances. That's what makes us better, and therefore in a position to judge those who carry out acts of wanton cruelty.

Answer 3

I am familiar with those laws... as well as the Torah and Koran.

I think we SHOULD strengthen punishments for certain crimes:  the Death Penalty should also apply to agravated rape, child rape, child molestation, and child kidnapping.

The beating of the elderly (as shown in several recent CNN stories) should result in LONG sentences...

I still believe in a fair trial... but I am alittle tired of plea-deals.

I think we SHOULD take care of lesser crimes like Sheriff Arpapaho (sp?) in Arizona does... hard work details, resonable humiliation...

Answer 4

oh yes...i'm almost positive we are...(eyeroll)...

Answer 5

The difference between the two examples you listed, the Code of Hammurabi and the Wild West, is how 'eye for an eye' is carried out.

In the former, a rigid, over-reaching government with set laws enforces those laws.

In the latter, locals or vigilantes enforce social customs, which may change with the years.

Unless one is willing to subscribe to a policy of constant revolution, the latter is superior to the former since it is more in touch with the people it is supposed to govern. The latter, however, is prone to extremism and mob rule, leading to 'sentences' that may in retrospect be unjust.

In both situations, someone is expecting freedom judge and take action; in the former the government and in the latter the populace.

In regards to martial law, the US and UK governments are bringing about martial law of the first form, while the terrorists are bringing about martial law of the the second order.

Neither is quite satisfactory, therefore the largely moderate population, in its own interest, must pursue a course of action that will guarantee limited power in limited hands.

Answer 6

No, because everyone deserves a fair trial. If that kind of justice was implemented, people would probably be killed instantly and may be just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Answer 7

I think we should bring back "For Your Eyes Only."  ...Roger Moore's finest.

Answer 8

I had a quick look at the answers. The Hammurabi code appears as more close to an eye for an eye. The Draconian Laws signifying as rule of unflinchingley severe on punishment for a just small crime. As these exists in long time ago and still many US regions or cities in terms committed an offence or crime at certain degree but will get different kinds of punishment or fine for the same offence. It's a contrvarsial topic to debate. If we are in the war of terrorism, martial laws or all kinds of supressed curfews will not affect the death wishes of those Moslem. They will go for it, die for it, and then fulfil their hopes of meeting Allah in their second life.

Answer 9

I don't know why the South has anything to do with this subject...I believe in a fair trial,but tougher sentences! I think child molesters and child abuses should get life without parole.I think some crimes committed don't get enough prison time,where others get too much.I have mixed feelings about the death penalty.

Answer 10

I am not familiar with the subjects you mention.  But, your question has made me think nevertheless.

I don't want to sound over simplistic, but I do not believe in an eye for an eye in general terms - that is; unless it effects my family.  I would then be enraged to the nth.  

Forgiveness and understanding is a most difficult concept to adopt and utilize to its full meaning.

Answer 11

Absolutely