Lex Talonis - Eye for an eye

[Gungalley]

Whats your opinion of an eye for an eye? Apparently the Talmud and the Quran both support such justice, from waht I've read, but please do correct me if I'm wrong here.

My inner moral compass tells me that it is wrong tho, and the utilitarian in me tells me that it achieves nothing. Do people really feel better after exacting the same punishment as the crime? 2 wrongs do not make one right, and an eye for an eye makes the world go blind. I believe that lex talonis contributes to the cycle of violence.

It is also one of hte reasons I am extremely impressed that Jesus was against such justice. He was indeed ahead of his time. And no, I'm not christian, so do not use that against me.

[Taiji]

Vigilanteism, blood feuds, whats to like? I'm with you on this, it's a primitive emotional response. You become an illegitemate judge, jury and executioner.

I'm also guilty of it, I'll often make my posts slightly more insulting if I believe the person I am conversing with is trying to insult me.

It's a stupid but extremely common facet to humanity.

[VALIS]

I don't believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in two eyes for an eye.

[Juvenal]

The purpose of this passage in the Bible is actually to prevent feuds from escalating, limiting revenge to no more than that which has been lost.

It is ironic that in the modern age many people miss the meaning entirely and think of it as a barbaric injunction to do violence against those with whom you have a grievance.

Here is a relevant excerpt from the Wiki article.

The term lex talionis does not always and only refer to literal eye-for-an-eye codes of justice (see rather mirror punishment) but applies to the broader class of legal systems that specify formulaic penalties for specific crimes, which are thought to be fitting in their severity. Some propose that this was at least in part intended to prevent excessive punishment at the hands of either an avenging private party or the state. The most common expression of lex talionis is "an eye for an eye", but other interpretations have been given as well. Legal codes following the principle of lex talionis have one thing in common: prescribed 'fitting' counter punishment for an offense. In the famous legal code written by Hammurabi, the principle of exact reciprocity is very clearly used. For example, if a person caused the death of another person's child, that person who killed the child (the guilty party) would be put to death for killing the child.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Simply put: lex talionis is the lack of civilized and developed law, if it's applied by the state.

If it's applied by an individual it is a primitive emotional response as Taiji said.

[Taiji]

Honestly, it's no better than when you get your hair pulled as a toddler and you try to pull their hair back. There may be some relation to the development of the concept of the punishment fitting the crime but nowadays we should look to more advanced cultures for inspiration about legal practise.

A person is alledged to have a commited a crime.

When found guilty by a jury under the guidance of a judge they are convicted of having commited the crime.

Then as they serve their punishment (or even after) they can appeal their conviction and their sentence.

Let's say we executed them for killing someone else, justice can no longer be done and in time we might even have to find the state guilty of manslaughter. Execution should be criminal in civilised society. C'mon america, catch up!

In the case where you literally blind someone for blinding someone else, it's frankly idiotic. You then have 2 people who will depend more heavily on their community to survive instead of just the one. Any kind of physical disability inflicted on a person as a punishment is a punishment for the entire society if that sociecty is civilised enough to care for it's disabled.

[MaximiIian]

I think it's a tad unethical to use eye-for-an-eye justice.
However, it is sadly a fact that humans use it, as we are emotional creatures. I'm definitely guilty of using it far too much in the past. Though, I am trying to live my life by the Law of Return, or an ethic of reciprocity.

It's difficult to be ethical. Boring, too.

[The Dude]

I think it's a tad unethical to use eye-for-an-eye justice.
However, it is sadly a fact that humans use it, as we are emotional creatures. I'm definitely guilty of using it far too much in the past. Though, I am trying to live my life by the Law of Return, or an ethic of reciprocity.

It's difficult to be ethical. Boring, too.

True. I try to adhere to the jedi code whenever I can (I find it a good general guideline for morality) but emotion sometimes has the better of me and I end up being a total vindictive dickwad about something nonetheless.

I always end up regretting it afterwards.

[Gungalley]

True. I try to adhere to the jedi code whenever I can

I'm really sorry, but I laughed when I read this.

[The Dude]

I'm really sorry, but I laughed when I read this.

It's a good guideline, you should take a look at it. Cut out the bits about the force and whatnot and what's left is a good approach at morality. No surprise, since it's effectively a mix of buddhism, taoism and some tiny bits of christianity.

[MaximiIian]

Well, if you keep the Force, it's even more like Taoism, with a bit of Aleister Crowley-style ceremonial magic. In any case, the Jedi code ain't that bad as a philosophical/ethical ideal.

Though I lol at the fact that my friend, a devout yet very open-minded and liberal Christian, has memorized the Sith Code. Not for any philosophical thing; he's just the biggest Star Wars nerd I've ever known...and he's on the University of Kentucky wrestling team. XDD

[saglam2000]

an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind.....an eye for a life keeps you alive and no more problems....

[Denny Crane!]

It is based in morality. If someone deserves to be punished for taking an eye then taking an eye is wrong. If you then take an eye then you are also wrong and should lose another eye.

Its inconsistent to state it is wrong to do something and then do it in return. In logic there can't be inconsistent contradictory statements. Morality has to be logical.

[MaximiIian]

Its inconsistent to state it is wrong to do something and then do it in return.

Playing devil's advocate here, since I don't really agree with lex talonis ethics, but...what of the statement "let the punishment fit the crime"? It certainly works, most of the time, in preventing violent crime.

[Denny Crane!]

Playing devil's advocate here, since I don't really agree with lex talonis ethics, but...what of the statement "let the punishment fit the crime"? It certainly works, most of the time, in preventing violent crime.

No it doesn't. Sorry but thats really not true. It is well proven that detterance doesn't work.

And thats before I get into the logical contradictions with that concept.

[hellas1]

Hi all,

Just HAD to comment on this thread.

People are so quick to not take the entire bible as god's word, WHY?
The Psalms say "The sum of your word is truth" and Jesus is that truth incarnate. Without HIM living inside YOU, the bible is just a nice book of historical info and you still are under the devil's snare and are darkened in your understanding BUT that can change.............


The "Eye for an Eye" statement found in the Torah or "Old Testament" is and has been misinterpreted for a very looooong time.

Here's, in a nutshell, what orthodox Judaism teaches about an "eye for an eye" (Check out Artscroll Publications Tanach series regarding this btw):

If I take out your eye because you took out mine, I might accidentally kill you by removing your eye." This verse is understood by Orthodox Jews to mean that you must remunerate the person who's eye was lost! NOT blind the other person as well!

In Christian interpretation, this verse has been warped also by varying denominations BUT the point made is :
Compassion and understanding NOT a vindictive attitude on the part of the assailant (purposive or not) and on the part of the injured as well.

Case closed.
hellas1

[RVFVS]

I agree with it. I think that it is a fair way of justice. It is unbiased and completely fair. If you kill you get killed. If you steal you get fined the amount you stole or go to jail depending on how much you stole. It is a good and uncorruptable system...unlike our curretn system.

[MaximiIian]

It is well proven that deterrence doesn't work.

You realize you can't prove a negative, right?
You can't "prove x doesn't work" more than you can "prove x doesn't exist".

In any case, go talk to regular people about crime, and you'll easily see that most of them would commit crimes if there were no punishments in the way. Deterrence does work. You just don't want it to.

[Mangalore]

...
In any case, go talk to regular people about crime, and you'll easily see that most of them would commit crimes if there were no punishments in the way. Deterrence does work. You just don't want it to.

There's a difference between violent crime and other crime. While you cannot prove a negative e.g. the death penalty shows no indication in studies to dissuade people from commiting murder because violent crime is commited in a psychological state where rarely a rational evaluation of the pro and contras takes place.

I agree with it. I think that it is a fair way of justice. It is unbiased and completely fair. If you kill you get killed. If you steal you get fined the amount you stole or go to jail depending on how much you stole. It is a good and uncorruptable system...unlike our curretn system.

The problem is the net loss for society (when murder takes one productive person out of society, blood revenge might remove two. Even more so when this includes accidents/manslaughter) and the danger of wrong convictions. The modern system takes into account that crime often doesn't happen in white and black situations.

[Morkonan]

Whats your opinion of an eye for an eye? Apparently the Talmud and the Quran both support such justice, from waht I've read, but please do correct me if I'm wrong here.

My inner moral compass tells me that it is wrong tho, and the utilitarian in me tells me that it achieves nothing. Do people really feel better after exacting the same punishment as the crime? 2 wrongs do not make one right, and an eye for an eye makes the world go blind. I believe that lex talonis contributes to the cycle of violence.

It is also one of hte reasons I am extremely impressed that Jesus was against such justice. He was indeed ahead of his time. And no, I'm not christian, so do not use that against me.

If Justice is "An eye for an eye" then we will all go blind.