Eye for an eye?

[JustMeSee]

If a man was convicted of gouging out a woman's eye, would it be fair to forcefully surgically remove one of his eyes to be donated to the victim?

Why or why not?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If a man was convicted of gouging out a woman's eye, would it be fair to forcefully surgically remove one of his eyes to be donated to the victim?

Why or why not?

It would not be right, because "an eye for an eye" is not justice. It's barbarism.

 

[nolongerhome]

... makes the world go blind.

Justice is not equal to revenge.

 

[Wedjat]

... makes the world go blind.

Justice is not equal to revenge.

poo, beat me to it.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Hmm... assuming we are talking about a society advanced enough to replace one of her eyes with his, I would say it would be far more reasonable for him to pay for the total cost of her getting the operation, including any expenses in getting a donor's eye.

Then the only question remains if he cannot pay, should his organ (eye in this case) be harvested? I think that is a bad precedent.

 

[RocketRed]

poo, beat me to it.

Me too! Gotta be faster.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hmm... assuming we are talking about a society advanced enough to replace one of her eyes with his, I would say it would be far more reasonable for him to pay for the total cost of her getting the operation, including any expenses in getting a donor's eye.

Then the only question remains if he cannot pay, should his organ (eye in this case) be harvested? I think that is a bad precedent.

It's a very bad precedent. Do we allow a father to rape a paedophile's child? Do we allow the widow of every enemy combatant to kill the soldier that killed their husband?

I think it's a good approximation of justice for the little things (you stole my pencil, so I'm taking yours), if only because it's quick. But for big things, we need a better system.

 

[RocketRed]

It's a very bad precedent. Do we allow a father to rape a paedophile's child? Do we allow the widow of every enemy combatant to kill the soldier that killed their husband?

I think it's a good approximation of justice for the little things (you stole my pencil, so I'm taking yours), if only because it's quick. But for big things, we need a better system.

Also: the idea that one violent act deserves another does nothing but perpetuate more violence. I think that if we are to truly punish such an act, then we can't do the same thing. It says, "You can't do it, but if you do, then I can do it to you." More violence is committed to punish violence and to discourage further violence. Too much.
I feel that justice should not be such.

 

[MoonLancer]

If a man was convicted of gouging out a woman's eye, would it be fair to forcefully surgically remove one of his eyes to be donated to the victim?

Why or why not?

actually with your twist to the age old argument, i would have to say that it is just. Normally i would say it is not just, as there is no benefit to gouging out the mans eye as it is simply revenge. however if the womans eye can be restored by taking the mans, it is not waist-full or based on revenge. Its righting the wrong that was committed.

I am still leery, but your twist makes me think that it could be just.

 

[Penumbra]

Hmm... assuming we are talking about a society advanced enough to replace one of her eyes with his, I would say it would be far more reasonable for him to pay for the total cost of her getting the operation, including any expenses in getting a donor's eye.

Then the only question remains if he cannot pay, should his organ (eye in this case) be harvested? I think that is a bad precedent.

I agree with this post.

 

[Polycarp1]

Compare the Lex Talionis in the Torah:

"But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." (Exodus 21:23-25)

with the life of grace:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies[c] and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?" (Matthew 5:38-46)

 

[b&wpac4]

Compare the Lex Talionis in the Torah:

"But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." (Exodus 21:23-25)

Just to give the Jewish understanding of this:

The punishment should fit the crime. Not literally an eye for an eye, but stealing a dollar is a lesser crime than stealing 2000 and thus the punishment for stealing a dollar should be less than for stealing 2000.

 

[JustMeSee]

Thanks for the replies.

I am on the fence with this one.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I think it's a good approximation of justice for the little things (you stole my pencil, so I'm taking yours), if only because it's quick. But for big things, we need a better system.

In the case of things which are clearly material possession, a 'you break it, you buy it' or 'you break it, you replace it' is not bad. But when we move away from possession, it goes downhill. I agree.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Just to give the Jewish understanding of this:

The punishment should fit the crime. Not literally an eye for an eye, but stealing a dollar is a lesser crime than stealing 2000 and thus the punishment for stealing a dollar should be less than for stealing 2000.

That's an interesting perspective. The punishment should obviously fit the crime, but I think the "eye for an eye" axiom is somewhat misleading. But then, we are translating an ancient Hebrew metaphor into old English, and then reading it as if it's modern English.

 

[david_x]

It is fair, in so much as it takes what was lost. It's an extension of "dollar for a dollar".

 

[pdudgeon]

but...........two wrongs don't make a right.

if what was done in the first place is wrong, giving the man a dose of his own medicine doesn't teach him anything except to be more careful not to get caught the next time. that's not the lesson you want him to learn.

 

[The Penitent Man]

It's a figure of speech.

Organ transplants require that the donor and recipient are of the same blood-type. So chances are if some random person gouged my eye out, his eye would be of no use to me as a replacement.

An eye for an eye leaves the world blind, literally and figuratively.

 

[lawtonfogle]

It is fair, in so much as it takes what was lost. It's an extension of "dollar for a dollar".

Not really. See, most dollars are just dollars. You can easily replace one with another. But take something like a hand. Cut mine off and put yours on instead, and it is still not my hand. The more mundane something is, the more likely it will be able to be replaced, and that the law should. Non-mundane things which can be replaced with mundane varieties should also be the same. If you stab me and rupture my kidney, then I do not see it unfair that you should be required to pay for a new kidney to be grown for me (assuming they have the kidney growing process working yet). But removal of your own kidney is acting on a non-mundane thing, and thus is not reasonable (and also, is not likely to be any where near as effective as a kidney grown from my own cells).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

but...........two wrongs don't make a right.

if what was done in the first place is wrong, giving the man a dose of his own medicine doesn't teach him anything except to be more careful not to get caught the next time. that's not the lesson you want him to learn.

The same argument could be used against the very concept of justice.