"Eye for an eye" rule for criminals?
By tennesseemom
@tennesseemom (62)
United States
February 18, 2007 7:49pm CST
There are so many people that believe that a fair punishment for violent criminals is the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" rule.
For instance if a man strangles his wife to death, he should be subject to EXACTLY the same fate as a court ruling.
What do you think? Is the "eye for an eye" idea a good one? Would there be any limitations or restrictions?
2 people like this
3 responses
@arnboy (357)
• India
19 Feb 07
If you are from middle east then i cant say because of cultural factors. Else i must say its the most brutal way of ensuring justice.
An eye for an eye will only make everyone blind. It does not make any sense, in fact it is a immature (kids like such justice), for normal adults, it makes sense to have better justice provisions.
@didi13 (2926)
• Romania
20 Oct 11
"Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" sounds an old Hebrew saying early part of your quote and it signifies an attitude adopted today by Hebrew, namely that of revenge. Any wrong must be punished by committing a similar wrong: if someone wore an eye, in its turn must lose one assailant. Understanding the meaning of the quote you posted we can assume that if for each eye was removed or did not see him out another one or we orbim in turn, will certainly be able to see eyes dwindled, so the world will become blind as long as individuals who will punish one another so formaza of revenge. This is the meaning of their own material to say, in the metaphorical sense, the more we escalate revenge, the more we will be all quiet widow. In my view the quote is a warning about the dangers of vengeful attitude, and an implied plea for forgiveness. Only well.
@limosonia1 (1559)
• United States
19 Feb 07
If this actually happened I believe their would be less crime in the world. As their would be consequences to peoples actions. Maybe it would make people think twice about hurting others. Since now all we do is give three meals and houseing.