Eye For An Eye Better??

What do you all think, is an eye for an eye better than what we have now? there's manslaughter and murder, are they really different? You tell me, but justify it please.

I think our court system should be eye for an eye. If you are found guilty of murder in any sort, you shall be murdered in that same sort. Also, our death row right now takes years to have someone on death row to be killed. I think they should be killed quicker in order for us not to have to pay to house and feed them.


What do you think??

 

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

Punishments such as the death penalty and an eye for an eye only accomplish a petty sense of revenge. They accomplish nothing in material terms.

 

im saying this because we put a man in prison for 30 years for killing someone. 35 years later he's in prison again, for killing someone.. it just doesnt seem to work.

 

First, if such a situation happened, then the man would not have been eligible for the death penalty anyway. Usually, life sentences are the only ones that might have been executions.

Second, it would be the fault of whomever convicted them not to jail them for life.

Third, how many cases has this actually happened in?

 

I think an eye for an eye is only allowed in fight, not when a relative is killed. This will make things worse.

About prisons and shit, I don't think 30 years is gonna help, because you shut them down for 30 years, and the world still goes on. Then when they come free, they are totally alienated.

 

Someone once corrected me a while back. I believed the justice system to be 50% revenge, 50% justice. Justice is the act of repaying a man for what he's done, revenge is that act of repaying a man out of anger and over-compensating for what he's done. This person corrected me, telling me that the justice system is not for revenge, but for the protection of society's normal members. You put someone in jail not because they did something wrong and need to be punished, but for society's protection.

I'm against the death penalty, except in EXTREME cases (imagine a real life SAW). Most of the time, these people are genuinely sorry for what they did, and some jail time or even life in jail is normally suitable to protect society from them.

The death penalty reminds me more of revenge. If putting them in a max security prison will protect society from them, why do we need to kill them?

 

I voted yes, but I only think it should be done for some crimes, and it shouldn't be taken literally. If someone is convicted of rape, castrate them, tatoo "rapist" on their forehead, and let them off on probation. If someone is a murderer, kill them. For lesser crimes I don't think it is needed.

 

and alot of people are innocent and still they are being executed!

 

Yet what about wrongful convictions? What do you do then?

 

i agree, but for small things like theft theyve got to repay it in full still. rape, i dont think we'd have like a govermental job of rapist lol. so that'd be a good idea.

 

For theft, maybe make them wear a special necklace around that means it's ok to steal their shit? llol?

 

lol that'd be hilarious, with like their address and security code rofl.

 

matters for murder then yes, theft then you jsut pay them back

 

kk, thats what im saying.

also, i saw your chris beniot siggy. i would hope its not a r.i.p. sig.

 

Dang it somebody already made mention to the blind thing, but instead of killing people instead we could use them, force them to do jobs that people dont want to do like heavy manual labor and if they refuse or do a crappy job well torture is a good out because why instantly kill somebody when you can make them really pay for what they did.

 

I'll remind you, The End, that torture is strictly forbidden under international law.

I'll also pose the question again: What if you wrongly convict somebody?

 

Well to be fair there would have to be a very up-tight process for determining if somebody was guilty, and if not possible to determine something I would grant them a honor-system type freedom but if they break the rules again, they get imprisoned. For international law if we are referring to citizens of our own country then why should other countries/entities govern our punishment? For foreign citizens, I think that abiding the law is rather simple, and they should receive equal punishment, but I would'nt allow a foreigner in my country unless they could communicate and actaully understand our current language (not pointed at any races of people as much as it sounds like it)

 

Well, I would think that we currently have a very uptight process. I hardly think we would do a half-assed job of convicting criminals...

Yes, it's our country, but we are all citizens of the world. There are certain things such as torture that are absolutely NOT allowed, and if other countries get wind of such things, they will do what they can to stop us, as we do to other countries.

 

I would think a couple of decades of pain, torturing, and punishment is better than a quick death.

 

Why? What will it accomplish in material terms?