An eye for an eye

Nope. I don't believe it works well on a personal level or on a societal level. On a personal level one often finds that the "eye" that one extracts from another is seen by more than an "eye" by the party that did the first damage/crime. Then the two parties often start going back and forth at each other often hurting innocent people in the process.
 
asp3 said:
Nope. I don't believe it works well on a personal level or on a societal level. On a personal level one often finds that the "eye" that one extracts from another is seen by more than an "eye" by the party that did the first damage/crime. Then the two parties often start going back and forth at each other often hurting innocent people in the process.
Click to expand...
There would be no extracting a single eye from anyone if I was in charge, it would be off with the individuals head. The end.

No gouging hard-working folk to keep such criminals housed in luxury, and all while supplying them with educations, degrees, and 3-square meals a day, no listening to them complaining, no incarceration reviews, and no repeat offenders.
 
Too often with white-collar crime, the criminals only have to pay back a small portion of what they stole or just pay a small fine for the damage they caused. Because of that, they have no incentive to not do what they did again. We see that time and time again with oil companies and Wall St. firms.

With poor people, on the other hand, the punishment often far exceeds the crime. People go to prison for stealing a bit of food or for drugs.
 
asp3 said:
Nope. I don't believe it works well on a personal level or on a societal level. On a personal level one often finds that the "eye" that one extracts from another is seen by more than an "eye" by the party that did the first damage/crime. Then the two parties often start going back and forth at each other often hurting innocent people in the process.
Click to expand...
I whole-heartedly agree with you it doesn't work on a personal level at all it just creates a terrible environment for both.

Understanding is the šŸ”‘ key. We all fall short at times and may not do what's best and forgiveness of one another is a better way to perpetuate peace. An eye for an eye is the easy way out for those who judge too harshly.
 
Going back to the source - there is a context for this phrase

Exodus 21:22-25 22"If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

It has been explained to me that this is a sanction against excessive punishment. I can't help thinking that it is not about the pregnant woman though but the damage to the husband's property. Something like hanging cattle rustlers because they ate the steer..
 
I cant help but think about the poor individual who was in perfect health, happy, well-adjusted, held down a promising job, and was heading for a promising career, had dreams, goals, and ambitions, possibly a wife or husband, maybe children, and all that was taken away from them by some societal scum that woke up one morning and decided that he or she was going to throw acid in someone's face.

That same person who was full of life is now blind, horribly disfigured, they have months, possible years of rehabilitation and therapy ahead of them, their spouse left them, and all of the goals, dreams, and ambitions they once had are now gone forever.

But the societal scum that did this, not so. He/she is caught, convicted, and charged accordingly, and they receive a sentence, however, 5-10 years after being locked-up, they're released, partially due to good behaviour, and partially due to the fact legal experts claim that the criminal has been rehabilitated, has remorse, and so life carries on for them just as normal as ever, just as it did prior to their heinous crime against another human being, and while the poor person that sustained the acid attack, their life will never be the same, the perpetrator walks freely, lives freely, and life is good once again for them.

Rubbish.
 
Last edited:
(Good one Warrior. put what if the cowboy was romancing the cow? Not an uncommon courting behavior in my early years.
Boys were hell on heifers. Hey not me, people i knew...)

Thirty years ago i would welling execute a big time drug dealer. I wouldn't do it now, age and my looming demise makes me think
more about this issue.

So, if one were to say, 'no death penalty;'. what do you do with the Masons. the Bundys.

I do not see these guys and those like them (child rapers, killers) as normal folks.
If i don't classify them as human, is it okay to kill them?

I do think all executions should be public and in the area where the crime was committed.; 'Hang 'um on the court house square...'

This is a complicated issue that we have never resolved.
 
Last edited:
Criminals should certainly be made to compensate for their crimes, whether it's to pay back the value of items stolen, repair damage to property, do unpaid work etc.
In the case of murder, if you take the life of another, you give up your own...simple as that. However, we must make the distinction between intended murder and accidental.
 
Gary O' said:
I've been too close to the 'justice system' to give a rat's pooper what happens up there

On a personal note?

Real simple

Anyone harms or intends to harm my lady, kids, grandkids, anyone in my care

They'll wish they hadn't

View attachment 146807
Click to expand...
If criminals were simply handed over to the victims and their families to deal with, then we might get real justice for a change......and none of this 'I forgive them' nonsense.
 
An eye for an eye makes the world go blind. Our police are famously known for not carrying sidearms, whenever a police officer has been murdered on duty the police force have been asked if they wish to be armed. The response has always been no. It's a sentiment that I understand and agree with.
 
mellowyellow said:
If we still had executions, this lady would be dead - so I'm glad we don't.

View attachment 146808
Click to expand...
I believe in the death penalty for heinous crimes...but ONLY if proved without doubt... in the case of Lindy Chamberlain she was subject of horrendous supposition.. so in my scenario she couldn't have been sentenced to death

( that poor woman, my God how she suffered)
 
horseless carriage said:
An eye for an eye makes the world go blind. Our police are famously known for not carrying sidearms, whenever a police officer has been murdered on duty the police force have been asked if they wish to be armed. The response has always been no. It's a sentiment that I understand and agree with.
Click to expand...
except , that they are armed on occasion... in fact I personally watched a house arrest just recently... 12 armed officers.. at a house where they were calling for the occupant to ''come out with your hands up''.... which he did without any problem, and was marched off in his pyjamas and dressing gown ...

Funny thing is.. that old people were walking past without a care..as though it was naughty boys playing with guns.. :ROFLMAO:
 
hollydolly said:
I believe in the death penalty for heinous crimes...but ONLY if proved without doubt... in the case of Lindy Chamberlain she was subject of horrendous supposition.. so in my scenario she couldn't have been sentenced to death

( that poor woman, my God how she suffered)
Click to expand...
The public are very quick to accuse parents when something happens to a child. People make mistakes, we all do..trial by Twitter has become the norm, with ignorant people making assumptions.
 
Actually, Holly, I contacted a police officer that I know just to be sure. Armed response units are trained officers that attend incidents where life is endangered. Only those officers that have been trained carry firearms.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top