An eye for an eye

So do you believe in this statement. If someone murders an innocent civilian, should they thereby get treatment of death. Im not talking about accidents like in a football game someones arm is broken, so break the guy who tacled hims arm. If someone rapes an innocent women, should they get raped by Smasher in the state penitentiary? Im just wondering your thoughts on this statement.

I think it should be done only when there is a 100% certainty that the person did the crime. If there's any doubt about it, you don't want to do the same thing to them then find out that they had the wrong guy. There'd be a lot of law suites going around.

2 wrongs don't make a right.

Nah, they tried that many years ago.

They did that even if it was by accident. It's a poor justice system/philosophy.

So do you believe in this statement. If someone murders an innocent civilian, should they thereby get treatment of death. Im not talking about accidents like in a football game someones arm is broken, so break the guy who tacled hims arm. If someone rapes an innocent women, should they get raped by Smasher in the state penitentiary? Im just wondering your thoughts on this statement.

BubbaRay12

You're misinterpreting what eye-for-an-eye means. Eye-for-an-eye is meant to dictate maximum punishments, not minimum.

The only time I am for capital punishment is in cases of undeniable evidence that the accused has either 1) Raped a woman or raped/molested/maliciously abused a child, 2) In severe heinous cases of animal/human cruelty/torture (that means Mike Vick would be dead), or 3) serial murderers. clayron

Unless these resulted in death, how do you justify a punishment more severe than the crime?

[QUOTE="clayron"]The only time I am for capital punishment is in cases of undeniable evidence that the accused has either 1) Raped a woman or raped/molested/maliciously abused a child, 2) In severe heinous cases of animal/human cruelty/torture (that means Mike Vick would be dead), or 3) serial murderers. 789shadow

Unless these resulted in death, how do you justify a punishment more severe than the crime?

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="clayron"]The only time I am for capital punishment is in cases of undeniable evidence that the accused has either 1) Raped a woman or raped/molested/maliciously abused a child, 2) In severe heinous cases of animal/human cruelty/torture (that means Mike Vick would be dead), or 3) serial murderers. clayron

Unless these resulted in death, how do you justify a punishment more severe than the crime?

That makes no sense. Dead is dead. There's no coming back.

No, I don't. Once a deed is done, it can't be undone, and there's frankly no point in stooping to the same level as a criminal in exacting revenge. I do, however, fully understand the anger that relatives and friends of victims feel, and it is for that reason that I'm glad justice is in the hands of impartial third parties, rather than victims and their relatives.

The best modern day proof you can see that eye for an eye doesn't work very well is the ongoing violent conflict between Israel and Palestine. One group hits, the other retaliates. So then the first retaliates for the retaliation, and then the second retaliates for the retaliation to the retaliation. It promotes a never-ending cycle of violence, and all the while anger just continues to build up, to the point that it becomes almost impossible to eliminate.

So do you believe in this statement. If someone murders an innocent civilian, should they thereby get treatment of death. Im not talking about accidents like in a football game someones arm is broken, so break the guy who tacled hims arm. If someone rapes an innocent women, should they get raped by Smasher in the state penitentiary? Im just wondering your thoughts on this statement.

BubbaRay12

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

That's the quote that I respect.

Also explains my thoughts on the statement.

[QUOTE="clayron"][QUOTE="789shadow"]

Unless these resulted in death, how do you justify a punishment more severe than the crime?

789shadow

That makes no sense. Dead is dead. There's no coming back.

I do not believe in the 'eye for an eye' concept. Absolutely not!

yea for murder but thats it

yea for murder but thats it

x8VXU6

Overall I would say no, but I couldn't physically restrain myself from hurting the hypothetical dude if for example he murdered somebody I cared about. An eye for an eye overall is socially unacceptable and thus I would expect somebody to attempt to stop me, otherwise I would be gravely disappointed.

Worst thing ever to come out of anyone's brains. In every conceivable situation, it's the worst choice of action.joao_22990

An eye for an eye sounds more like vengeance than justice to me.

From a logical standpoint, I really can't identify one justifiable reason for revenge. Looked at from an emotional one, however, I see many. I honestly can't say that if someone murdered those I care about and I had the chance to take retribution without the chance of reprecussions, that I wouldn't do something about it.

2 wrongs don't make a right.

hedden93

2 negatives make a postive however.

wow, people advocating death penalty for rape is ridiculous

since a woman can decide later on consensual sex was not (i.e. they were drunk, had sex with a guy then regretted it the next day)

I would do an I for and I but and eye for an eye I just cant do.

I think it should be done only when there is a 100% certainty that the person did the crime. If there's any doubt about it, you don't want to do the same thing to them then find out that they had the wrong guy. There'd be a lot of law suites going around.

AngrySpider

Exactly! But how can you be 100% sure? I don't really believe in "an eye for an eye". I believe in second chances. And nobody is innocent. A good person does bad things to good people everyday without knowing it. So i believe in what Serj Tankian said. All the people gather around, we don't need to multiply. DIE!

Capital Punishment is already economically unfeasible to its primary alternative, and it also presents an inferior moral situation due to the fact that you can't ever prove a person guilty beyond all doubt.

Now, before somebody comes in and expresses the insufficiently thought-out belief that I'm wrong because I wouldn't be singing the same tune had some tragedy befallen a family member or whatnot, I'd like to mention that people are generally more rational when they're impartial than when they've turned into emotional nukes.

So do you believe in this statement.

BubbaRay12

(not a one word post)

[QUOTE="hedden93"]

2 wrongs don't make a right.

Grandotaku

2 negatives make a postive however.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

I remember talking to some satanists back in the day (nice people) who said that an eye for an eye was a belief of their religion.

[QUOTE="joao_22990"]Worst thing ever to come out of anyone's brains. In every conceivable situation, it's the worst choice of action.F1_2004

[QUOTE="joao_22990"]Worst thing ever to come out of anyone's brains. In every conceivable situation, it's the worst choice of action.F1_2004

It makes the whole world blind.CRS98

But if person1 kills person2 for murdering someone else, shouldn't person1 be killed as well?Scarface_tm431

i'm strongly against it,i believe that accused's mental status when the crime comitted should be considered,not all of the perpetrations are pre-planned yet they might be comitted on purpose ,due to an instant rage or reaction. and while we could always go wrong to distinguish a preplanned crime from an unplanned one,i think we should avoid something that it's consequences are irreversible.

I support rehabilitation. I also don't support capital punishment because we lack any resurrection techniques. If you kill the wrong guy you can't bring him back later and say "Sorry bout that!"

[QUOTE="F1_2004"][QUOTE="joao_22990"]Worst thing ever to come out of anyone's brains. In every conceivable situation, it's the worst choice of action.supa_badman

No, it would be incredibly impractical.

Especially for paedophilia, that would mean young kids have to look at pictures of the paedophile, which doesn't really make sense as a punishment. Also for serial murderers you'd have to kill the same murderer multiple times.

No, it would be incredibly impractical.

Especially for paedophilia, that would mean young kids have to look at pictures of the paedophile, which doesn't really make sense as a punishment. Also for serial murderers you'd have to kill the same murderer multiple times.

markop2003

lol :D
what would they do to terrorists? Put them in a house and drive a sucide bomber into them ?