Eye for an Eye - A discussion

[Crazed Rabbit]

And then what does that person's family do in response to the fact that you did something so horrific to their brother/son/in law? They come back at you and attack more of YOUR family members, in even more gruesome methods. You, angered they would dip to such low methods, go even further in revenge. Where does it end? Until whole villages are annihilated? Whole towns? Provinces? Countries? Give me some proof that such a tactic actually prevents such violence. Actual studies and facts would be preferable instead of heated rhetoric.

Mutually assured destruction did keep the world from engaging in nuclear war.

CR

[seireikhaan]

Mutually assured destruction did keep the world from engaging in nuclear war.

CR

Which is unfortunately a red herring to this argument, as nobody outside of governments has access to nuclear bombs(at least, I hope ) Throwing acid on your former spouse's face is hardly the same thing as detonating a nuclear bomb in her home. Mutually assured destruction is NOT the same thing as having the ability to retaliate.

[yesdachi]

Which is unfortunately a red herring to this argument, as nobody outside of governments has access to nuclear bombs(at least, I hope ) Throwing acid on your former spouse's face is hardly the same thing as detonating a nuclear bomb in her home. Mutually assured destruction is NOT the same thing as having the ability to retaliate.

Retaliation is not the same as mutual assured destruction but if equal “retaliation” (eye for and eye) was legal and commonly accepted I do think it would work to cutback the amount of violent crimes committed.

If you know that you will get acid poured into your eyes if you pour acid into someone else’s eyes, I bet you think twice about it.

[Meneldil]

As much as I despise this form of 'justice', I understand it.
For too long this kind of event went unpunished. Having this kind of eye for an eye responses will probably make the damn bastards think twice about doing it.

Notice that I'm only supporting it for the fact that women had been voiceless for too long in these countries, and that any kind of answer to this (well known) issue is better than nothing. Ultimately, a more civilized kind of answer would be billions of times better, assuming you're in a rational and civilized country, which is obviously not the case.

Notice also that if it was only up to me, the bastard would be killed in the most painful and slowest way, but hopefully, nobody has to listen to me on this issue.

[Ironside]

Retaliation is not the same as mutual assured destruction but if equal “retaliation” (eye for and eye) was legal and commonly accepted I do think it would work to cutback the amount of violent crimes committed.

I know that one, it's called bloodfeud, no vendetta.

If you know that you will get acid poured into your eyes if you pour acid into someone else’s eyes, I bet you think twice about it.

I would say that actually prosecuting the perpetrator for aggrevated assult like they should be would work wonders.

[rasoforos]

Hmmm

The spread of oppinions are a bit different than I thought they would be.

Many people seem to prefer injuring the perpetrator and letting him go free than actually protecting the society from him. This is just punitive and not social benefit oriented.

Could it be that we ourselves are addicted to the process of causing more harm than the harm done to us? Maybe deep in the human psyche we enjoy the whole 'was wronged-did worse as revenge' circle and consequently are genetically inclined to prefer punitive instead of correctional measures.

[Husar]

Retaliation is not the same as mutual assured destruction but if equal “retaliation” (eye for and eye) was legal and commonly accepted I do think it would work to cutback the amount of violent crimes committed.

If you know that you will get acid poured into your eyes if you pour acid into someone else’s eyes, I bet you think twice about it.

Or you think since the person is now blind you will be superior and have nothing to fear afterwards.
Or you kill them outright so they cannot retaliate.
Or you kill their whole family so noone of them can retaliate.
Or you kill their whole clan so noone of them can retaliate.
Or you kill their whole country so noone can retaliate.
Or they defend themselves and you get a feud/war.

[LittleGrizzly]

The difference between mutually assured destruction (nukes) and personal revenge is obvious!

With MAD everyone dies (or everyone who is part of your country)

With personal revenge at no point does anyone think how many could die because of this one action as the death cycle is alot slower....

[yesdachi]

I would say that actually prosecuting the perpetrator for aggrevated assult like they should be would work wonders.

I would agree with that. Of course the system would have to change for that to happen too, seeing as the women who gets the acid doesn’t really have any rights, the guy gets treated like he poured acid on the ground.

I stand by my statement that if you know someone will hurt you if you hurt them then you will be less likely to dish out some hurt. Doesn’t this type of eye for an eye (or worse) work relatively well for the mob of yesterday? Sure there are incidents but for the most part one family doesn’t move against another because they know they will be retaliated against.

[Fragony]

Could it be that we ourselves are addicted to the process of causing more harm than the harm done to us?

I think it is the other way around, we have gotten too used to causing less harm then was actually inflicted. Burning out his eyes with acid is too poetic for my liking, but I hope it really hurts anyway.

[rory_20_uk]

Vigilante justice is not likely if the populace believes that for a given crime the perpetrator will be caught and the punishment is sufficient.

With the rates of convicting criminals so low, and punishment so low for non-violent crimes in the UK it's amazing more don't go it.

Compare punishments now to what was inflicted 150 years ago - it's got a hell of a lot more pleasant.

[Thermal]

And scissors, pens, and everything made of glass?

definately, and be put in straight jackets to stop physical abuse

[PBI]

The trouble with drawing a comparison to MAD is, the whole reason why MAD works is that those who rise to positions of power, whether by fair means or foul, tend to have a very strong instinct for self-preservation and an understanding that rash, impulsive actions tend to have undesirable consequences. The same is not true of the general population; I suspect there are plenty of people who, given access to nuclear weapons, would immediately use them on the next person who cuts them up in traffic. It's just that these people are unlikely to have the temperament needed in order to obtain high political office.

I guess making punishments more severe may discourage people if the previous punishment is truly regarded as trivial, but whatever the Mail would have us believe I don't think many people would expect a long prison term to be akin to a stay in a five star hotel. It's hard to see why anyone in their right mind would commit a serious crime as it is if they think it likely they will be caught and spend most (or all) of the rest of their life in prison, so one can only conclude that the people who commit such crimes believe they will not be caught and thus consider the prospective punishment irrelevant.

[The Stranger]

a lot of crimes are commited when one believes he has no other option, no other way than to do so. that turns an ordinary man in a killer. and than you also have the "mad" man who kills per example because he doesnt see that it is wrong. because he looks at things differently than the general population. but the fact that we consider raping a girl or murdering a human being as wrong is only because we as a populiation (majority) decided it was so. when the majority decides that it isnt wrong anymore, per example to kill jews on sight, it isnt. untill another majority surfaces and says otherwise. the majority however doesnt always have to be numerical, in the end for evil to prevail it only takes the good to look away.