Do you believe the US would have less crime if an "Eye for an eye" law were in place?

SPC David Shaffer — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 11:56:41 -0500

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/05/eye-for-an-eye-iran-blinds-man-who-carried-out-acid-attack?CMP=ema_565

Eye for an eye: Iran blinds acid attacker

Medics gouge out man’s eye in first known case where retribution ruling has been carried out, amid condemnation from human rights groups

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2015 12:17 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:17:38 -0500

Absolutely. I really believe if this law was in place, there would be less crime in the USA. The perp would actually rethink what he was about to do... I believe.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Mar 6 at 2015 12:17 PM

Cpl Mark McMiller — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:17:54 -0500

I think in circumstances of very heinous crimes, it might not be such a bad idea. If a person is so callous in intentionally inflicting that kind of pain and permanent disability or death on someone, then why should their lives be worth more than their victim? I kind of think justice demands it.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Mar 6 at 2015 12:19 PM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:19:16 -0500

I do not think it would reduce the committing of many crimes as most people either think they can get away with it or just have no understanding of the consequences.

I do think it would vastly cut down on recidivism though.

Ex: Under Hammurabi's code theft would have your hand chopped off at the wrist. Just have to catch a thief twice to fix that problem for good.

I personally would love to see some of the more heinous and disgusting crimes be done back to those that committed them. A perfect example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom

We are not, however, animals and revenge does not become us.

Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Channon Gail Christian, 21, and Hugh Christopher Newsom, Jr., 23, were an unmarried couple from Knoxville, Tennessee. They were kidnapped the evening of January 6, 2007 when Christian's vehicle was carjacked, and taken to a rental house, where they were raped, tortured, and murdered.[1][2] Five people were arrested and charged in the case. The grand jury indicted four of the suspects on counts of capital murder, robbery, kidnapping, rape, and...

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 6 at 2015 2:01 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 14:01:35 -0500

Statistically speaking just a bad idea. False accusations of (any) crime is around 6-12%. It's estimated that false conviction for death penalty cases is around 4%. Think about that 1 in 25.

You can't undo death. You can't undo maiming.

The way our current justice system is built, conviction of a felony (whether deserved of not) severely limits a persons job options in the future.

I'm very conflicted about the Death Penalty. I think it's a valid tool to get rid of monsters that shouldn't exist, that have proven they can't live in society. But "this," no... this isn't a good tool... this makes us the monsters.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2015 2:54 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 14:54:52 -0500

I answer no, not because "this would be a waste of time" but because unlike our friends in the Middle East, we in the West have left the realm of the "cruel and the unusual" in the Dark Ages where these sort of punishments belong. Granted, it sounds like a cool concept, ripping a page straight from Hammurabi's Code, and for you Biblical types, it might seem righteous borrowing from the Old Testament. Well, it's not. To pass such a judgement and carry out such a sentence spits in the face of the concept that all but the very worst of offenders in our criminal justice system have rehabilitative potential. If we purposefully maim and cripple those who offend are we not compounding the impacts of their crimes on society? Who is accountable to pay for the long-term care of this state-created disabled person? Before you say "Nobody, let them fend for themselves!", take a breath and think that one through logically, how would the U.S. Supreme Court likely answer the inevitable legal challenges certain to reach it's chambers for consideration? I think we all know that in the end, the state that inflicted the disability will in turn be left accountable for the long-term costs associated with that disability. We really are a better, more caring, compassionate culture than that which you see in the Middle East. There is absolutely nothing there worthy of emulating here.

Response by Cpl Bo Dronet made Mar 6 at 2015 3:05 PM

Cpl Bo Dronet — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 15:05:47 -0500

Can you rehabilitate a man with a burned face or bring back the victim of a violent crime or make a woman forget being raped.

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Mar 6 at 2015 3:28 PM

SA Harold Hansmann — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 15:28:39 -0500

Not a good idea in my book, granted there are and have been people that I would love to deal with in this method.
But, I do believe, that if you are breaking into my house, you will be shot with a 12 gauge loaded with #7 shot. ( I don't want the bb's going through the walls and into the neighbors house.)

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Mar 6 at 2015 4:00 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:00:49 -0500

Lex talionis - an eye for an eye - is a law in the Torah - the Five Books of Moses. It is stated several times in differing ways in Torah.

That being said, unlike the Code of Hammurabi, Judaism has NEVER carried out Lex Talionis punishment. The rabbinic commentaries on these verses is very clear - we are to assess a MONETARY compensation for the injured party. Judaism is actually a Rabbinic, not a Biblical religion, so this is how the rabbis are able to over-rule what's in the Torah.

AS an example. Let's say I poke out your eye. You still have an eye to see with. But, what if I only have ONE eye, and you poke it out in retribution. That is not an equitable deal, since you can still see, but I am now blind.

If this were the law, we'd have lots of blind people and little justice.

For justice to be effective, it MUST be tempered with logic AND mercy.

In the West, we condemn brutal punishments such as cutting off of a hand, beheading, etc. I am disturbed that people would think that this is an ideal form of punishment.