An eye for an eye?

Yes

No

[thomasjack]

An eye for an eye.

 

Why are you shocked? It should be up to the family to decide whatever the punishment is...death, castration, solitary confinement for life, whatever...

Are you serious?

That's insane.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. I think that the families should always have the final say in the matter. Are you anti-family?

You've got to be shitting me.

Nope, and I think a lot of people here would agree with me.

If someone murdered me, I would hope that my parents would hunt the fucker down and destroy him.

[DogOn]

The idea that a victim or a victims family should be able to do whatever they want to the perpetrator is insane.

Just because you feel like you should take revenge, doesn't mean its right to.

Inflicting physical harm on someone who is not a direct threat to your person is immoral, end of story.

Now if a guy takes out one of your eyes, and you would like restitution in the form of having the guys eye taken out, and both victim and victee agree to it, I'm fine with that, but unbridled physical violence is not justice, and its not moral.

[Taors]

The idea that a victim or a victims family should be able to do whatever they want to the perpetrator is insane.

Just because you feel like you should take revenge, doesn't mean its right to.

Inflicting physical harm on someone who is not a direct threat to your person is immoral, end of story.

Now if a guy takes out one of your eyes, and you would like restitution in the form of having the guys eye taken out, and both victim and victee agree to it, I'm fine with that, but unbridled physical violence is not justice, and its not moral.

Why should the victee have a say in anything? That's what's insane to me.

[DogOn]

Why should the victee have a say in anything? That's what's insane to me.

So if someone steals a penny from me I can decide to have him infected with aids and keep him prisoner in my basement for the rest of his life?

Thats why the victee has a say, and also, if they were to agree to such a ludicrous punishment out of some twisted sense of guilt then people should be free to do that.

I don't think there can be any objectively definable absolute justice, however, a system I would support would be to have a default restitutive act set up by the court for a certain crime, and if both parties can't agree to any other form of restitution, whether it be violence, money, sexual favors, whatever, then it goes to the court default.

A victim has a right to be made whole for the crimes committed against them, this isn't the same as the right to do whatever they want or feel is just.

[Taors]

Why should the victee have a say in anything? That's what's insane to me.

So if someone steals a penny from me I can decide to have him infected with aids and keep him prisoner in my basement for the rest of his life?

Thats why the victee has a say, and also, if they were to agree to such a ludicrous punishment out of some twisted sense of guilt then people should be free to do that.

I don't think there can be any objectively definable absolute justice, however, a system I would support would be to have a default restitutive act set up by the court for a certain crime, and if both parties can't agree to any other form of restitution, whether it be violence, money, sexual favors, whatever, then it goes to the court default.

A victim has a right to be made whole for the crimes committed against them, this isn't the same as the right to do whatever they want or feel is just.

We're talking about murder. Just murder.

[DogOn]

If its murder does that mean you can then do whatever you want?

Eye for an eye is just another specious premise like money is the root of all evil.

If I rape your daughter do you get to rape mine? Do you get to rape me?

A better system is to work out what rights can be objectively defined for a human and then work a justice system based around that.

I can make a strong case for voluntary interaction and self defense, whats the case for eye for an eye? Not to mention in many cases it would invalidate rights you don't have the right to.

Logically mirroring a situation doesn't make your choices logical.

You never have the right to end another persons life against their will. Now you have a right to kill someone to defend your life, but thats because your rights overlap them when they decide to act or threaten to kill you. Your freedoms end where anothers begin, and the freedom not to be murdered is innate to all humans no matter how they act, making the distinction between murder and self defense.

Under the eye for an eye system, do I get to kill you if you kill my brother in a car accident you were responsible for?

It's not logically congruent to OK murder just because death is involved in the situation.

What right is being infringed by not being able to murder someone who murders someone you know? You have the right to be made whole, but how can that right invalidate anothers right to life?

If someone takes your life then there is a massive debt owed to you, and to that extent anyone you designated your post humous will to, but that debt does not encompass their own life unless they agree to it. Its their right and they keep it for so long as they do not make it necessary for another to kill in self defense.

Morals are objective constants, or they do not exist at all. Murder does not suddenly become moral just because something bad happened.

You can argue that a murderer should have to repay the monetary value of the life, or pay in the freedoms and time that they took, but how can you ever justify killing someone when it is not to defend your own life?

By logical extension, in some instances, theft could warrant the death of the thief, say if the thief stole money needed for medicines/food that then lead someone to die. They were responsible for anothers death, now their life is up for grabs.

Even if an objectively definable human morality does not exist, I believe it to be the best choice to base any system of morals that we make up to have objective criteria that are consistent with the nature of man and personal freedom.

[Taors]

Sounds great in theory, but I'll stick with my system.

[DogOn]

Sounds great in theory, but I'll stick with my system.

care to fill me in as to why its better?

I'm sure you have done some in depth talk about it, but all I've seen from you is generalistic, anyone who hurts me and mine is gonna pay style stuff, and I'm too lazy to trawl posts to read up on your reasons.

edit: ^^^^^^ not meant to sound sarcastic

[Evil Muppet]

then there is the turn the other cheek.  The whole idea of forgiveness. 

[hellbilly]

I think figuratively it's a good concept, so my vote was yes. Literally, "an eye for an eye", wouldn't sort things out for me.

Take the rape question above.. I don't like the idea of rape, so I would have no interest in raping a rapists daughter. She might not even be my type anyway.

So- I would side with common sense. A particularly heinous crime against me or my loved ones is cause for me to seek revenge- in a more elaborate, degrading and painful way than what was dealt my way to begin with.

[Taors]

Sounds great in theory, but I'll stick with my system.

care to fill me in as to why its better?

I'm sure you have done some in depth talk about it, but all I've seen from you is generalistic, anyone who hurts me and mine is gonna pay style stuff, and I'm too lazy to trawl posts to read up on your reasons.

edit: ^^^^^^ not meant to sound sarcastic

My reasoning is that there is NO form of restitution for the crime of murder. None, whatsoever. You can't put value on a human life...so, what is equal to a human life? Another human life.

[bakerbaker]

then there is the turn the other cheek.  The whole idea of forgiveness. 

[Wayne]

Sounds great in theory, but I'll stick with my system.

care to fill me in as to why its better?

I'm sure you have done some in depth talk about it, but all I've seen from you is generalistic, anyone who hurts me and mine is gonna pay style stuff, and I'm too lazy to trawl posts to read up on your reasons.

edit: ^^^^^^ not meant to sound sarcastic

My reasoning is that there is NO form of restitution for the crime of murder. None, whatsoever. You can't put value on a human life...so, what is equal to a human life? Another human life.

I agree.

I don't think it's always necessary, or always desireable. But it seems clear to me that if someone murders someone else, it is absolutely just for their life to be taken.

The alternative? For poor murderers to be stuck in jail while rich ones just pay the restitution.

"I say Jeeves, what shall we do for tonight's entertainment?"
"Well sir, there are some vagabonds over on the West Side; if you get caught, it's merely a million dollars to satisfy the courts."

Yeah. Nice alternative.

That said... I'd still be against a government making use of a death penatly, simply because they're so untrustworthy. But individuals? Particularly people who were there and witnessed their loved one's murder? Sure, it's probably best they forgive, seek restitution and move on, but if they choose justice over money, I'll back them.

[NHArticleTen]

then there is the turn the other cheek.  The whole idea of forgiveness. 

Yeah, that worked with Ramirez(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ramirez), Dahmer(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer), Manson(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson), Gacy(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gacy), Capone(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_capone), Mugabe(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe), The Bush/Clinton Narcotics And Weapons Dynasty(http://www.dldewey.com/columns/jul02f.htm), ETC...

place barrel to temple...
squeeze...






-randwasright-

[MacFall]

I voted no. It should be "An eye for an eye plus interest and court costs."