Revenge: An eye for an eye?

[ViolaWoman]

This is an interesting topic and it sent me on a word association hunt. "Revenge" is closely linked to "retribution" which according to the Online Etymology Dictionary means:

 

 

 

"from 1382, "repayment," from L. retributionem (nom. retributio) "recompense, repayment," from retributus, pp. of retribuere "hand back, repay," from re- "back" + tribuere "to assign, allot" (see tribute). Sense of "evil given for evil done" is from day of retribution (1526) in Christian theology, the time of divine reward or punishment."

 

 

 

While in the same Dictionary, revenge means:

 

 

 

"1375, from O.Fr. revengier, from re-, intensive prefix, + vengier "take revenge," from L. vindicare "to lay claim to, avenge, punish" (see vindicate).

 

 

 

To avenge is ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åto get revengeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[BlueLancer]

A fair few of you seem to be forgetting while prison is certainly intended as punishment and as a detterent (Love to see how many people who say "five years is nothing" has even tried one month doing something you'd rather not, sleeping in a bed not your own, with zero control of your own life, due to the force of law), it's also intended to remove harmful elements from society by separating them from the general population.

 

 

 

"Getting them off the streets" is more than a catchy line used in cop-shows.

 

 

 

I suggest you get familiar with the term "reoffending rates". :lol: There are more people who renew their crime after getting out, than those who play it clean after they served their sentence.

 

 

 

So obviously, nothing is changing in their brains while they spend time in prison. Nothing is deterring them from abusing a child again or mugging people with a large gang when they get out.

 

 

 

The reoffending rates are much lower in third world countries than in western ones, and some asian countries such as China. And I don't really even want to know what the other inmates are allowed to do, overlooked by the guards, to the worst offenders such as molestors.

 

 

 

I'm a friend of justice, really. So I don't see how it is illegal to punish offenders inhumanely who have treated innocent people inhumanely.

 

 

 

If I ever did something stupid such as stealing very valuable property, I would expect to get serious, painful physical punishment. Not 700 days of sitting in a cell and getting free food.

[StrOwez]

revenge on a smalls scale is fine IMO, however in life for life is absurd that's why I'm against the death penalty, your saying it's wrong for that person to take a life but you're taking his.

[BlueLancer]

revenge on a smalls scale is fine IMO, however in life for life is absurd that's why I'm against the death penalty, your saying it's wrong for that person to take a life but you're taking his.

 

 

 

Death is actually an easy way out. I have no idea why countries and governments sponsor this as a punishment. Why do you think non-suicidal professional criminals turn the gun on their head if they're about to get caught & know they're looking at 40 years inside the walls?

 

 

 

Take China for example, one of the most common punishments for serious crime is labor camps. 40 Years of forced labor in a coal mine... The offender gets punished, and the society benefits & doesn't have to kill a person.

[StrOwez]

revenge on a smalls scale is fine IMO, however in life for life is absurd that's why I'm against the death penalty, your saying it's wrong for that person to take a life but you're taking his.

 

 

 

Death is actually an easy way out. I have no idea why countries and governments sponsor this as a punishment. Why do you think non-suicidal professional criminals turn the gun on their head if they're about to get caught & know they're looking at 40 years inside the walls?

 

 

 

Take China for example, one of the most common punishments for serious crime is labor camps. 40 Years of forced labor in a coal mine... The offender gets punished, and the society benefits & doesn't have to kill a person.

death is not really the easy way out it has devarstating effects on the families of the offender and the offender can actually be not guilty, however in some countries its more cheap to kill as you don't have to feed/wash/heat the prisoner for the rest of his/her life.

 

 

 

Now a labour camp isn't a humane form of punishment, but one of torcher and prolonged suffering as the person in the coal mine would probably die a slow, agonising death of TB or something.

[GrimHams]

Addressing violent crimes i don't believe "an eye for an eye" but i do think the death penalty should be inforced in Britain. Wasting tax payers money on upholding and building prisons that are going to be crowded isn't the best way to do things. I'd also deport any immigrants who committed violent actions and let their government deal with them, you should lose your rights to many things if you break the law. It shouldn't be upheld to defend the rights of the aggressor when there are so many examples of the persons family who got shot/murdered being angry with the loopholes and poor governing of criminals.

 

 

 

Going back to an "eye for an eye", its a very old fashioned way of looking at things and i don't think its practical in todays western society, its the sort of thing that would be implimented in eastern countries.

[dsavi]

Lol?

 

The world would be a better place if we were based on an eye for an eye.

 

All the murderers, killed.

 

Maybe a person who spray paints on another persons property, have their finger chopped off, I don't see why not :?

 

 

 

In other words, no more humans. Please tell me you get that...

[IGoddessI]

"An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind"

 

 

 

summed up my thoughts pretty much too but I'm also a hippy :lol:

 

 

 

Some people just don't get the 'put yourself in the other persons shoes' part though, so sometimes I feel I have to let them be that person.

[BlueLancer]

 

Now a labour camp isn't a humane form of punishment, but one of torcher and prolonged suffering as the person in the coal mine would probably die a slow, agonising death of TB or something.

 

 

 

But I still keep wondering: Why a person who has molested children, killed people, robbed... Should be allowed to have any kind of "humane" treatment at all instead of just being thrown at a mob who can evaluate what he has done to other innocent people?

 

 

 

It makes sense *only* in some ultra-humanist utopia. Your mind would change in an instant if something bad had happened to your family member that had scarred him/her for life or even lead to his/her death or suicide.

[BlueTear]

I suggest you get familiar with the term "reoffending rates". :lol: There are more people who renew their crime after getting out, than those who play it clean after they served their sentence.

But harsher punishments serves as a more effecient deterrent? The USA has considerably higher prisonterm penalties across the board, yet last time I saw a number there was a 60% recidivism among former convicts within 3 years. Looking at the corresponding statistic for Sweden - who's general prison term penalties are so short I find them quite silly myself - the corresponding number is 40%. If longer prison terms is such a wonderful detterent, then how come? You want to avoid recidivism, you spent more efforts on readaption into society which benefits both the individuals who manage to readapt and society[/i] as a whole, as opposed to pleasing your personal sense of revenge.

 

 

 

(And stumbling upon a what I'd personally deem a chinese propaganda site, they agree with me!)

[assassin_696]

I hate to say it, but I'd do the same thing as everyone else in this case.

 

 

 

If my friend was beaten brutally for no reason, if I had a child who was abused by a molester, etc... I don't think a prison with 3 warm meals a day, a TV and books for five years is a proper punishment. I'd put my life on a halt and do everything in my power to track down, locate, and make the people responsible suffer as intensely as possible.

 

 

 

It's very hard for me to explain. I wouldn't take such action against a robber. I wouldn't do it against a person who nicked my car door. I wouldn't do it against a person who hit me or somebody else in the face. Those people have completely different motives.

 

 

 

As far as my memories go, I've always hated, with a passion, people who are cowardly and systematically (with full knowledge of what they are doing) take advantage/assault people who are weak and have absolutely no chance to protect themselves, such as children.

 

 

 

Whilst I largely believe in reform wherever possible, justice must always be served. I mostly agree with your sentiments, I think if anyone ever harmed a member of my family or a loved one i'd bring down the full force of the law on them, as well as perhaps getting a bit of my own revenge.

 

 

 

But, when you start thinking about getting into pure revenge scenarios, is that really justice? Will that really make you feel better? And when you throw a child molester to the dogs what makes you any better than him?

 

 

 

Trial by jury, prisons, these are all sensible ideas. Criminals might have high re-offending rates, but that's maybe becuase there isn't enough emphasis on reform rather than the prisons not being tough enough.

[venomai]

I suggest you get familiar with the term "reoffending rates". :lol: There are more people who renew their crime after getting out, than those who play it clean after they served their sentence.

 

 

 

So obviously, nothing is changing in their brains while they spend time in prison. Nothing is deterring them from abusing a child again or mugging people with a large gang when they get out.

 

You're right, prison doesn't always help. In fact, over 60% of offenders are re-convicted within two years after release.[1]

 

 

 

However, that means about 40% of the offenders may be learning some kind of a lesson. In 2002, the U.S. prison population was at around 2 million persons.[2] This means up to 800,000 of those inmates may be released with lessons learned. Do they all deserve to die?

 

 

 

There are a number of inmates who manage to turn their lives around while in jail. Especially those who seek help. Many prison inmates live normal and otherwise innocent lives after serving their time. It would be a shame if all these now-great people were killed by acts of savage and useless revenge.

 

 

 

But I still keep wondering: Why a person who has molested children, killed people, robbed... Should be allowed to have any kind of "humane" treatment at all instead of just being thrown at a mob who can evaluate what he has done to other innocent people?

 

Because it's the 21st century. :?: Or should we scrap all that we've been striving for? Should we simply fall back to the savage past of our ancestors, killing anyone who opposes us?

 

 

 

IMO these "horrible" people are people who are born/raised with a different set of morals. Through proper psychological treatment we can shift their morals into the social norm, allowing them to think and act much like the rest of us.

 

Torturing them with "an eye for an eye" motive is a poor option; it makes us just as horrible and savage as the offender. It's also very rare that the offender learns any lessons. Getting tortured will only enrage the offender more, making them more violent and more aggressive.

 

Killing them is also a poor option; death is an easy way out and in no way should we allow them to damage our society without giving back to it.

 

 

 

Your mind would change in an instant if something bad had happened to your family member that had scarred him/her for life or even lead to his/her death or suicide.

 

I don't doubt it... And that is the ultimate power of revenge. :(

 

 

 

 

 

This is all speculation, but what about high doses of etheogens (psychedelic drugs) as a form of treatment? Take, for example, the LSD thumbprint -- where users ingest hundreds of hits worth of LSD crystals in a single lick of the thumb. The experience that follows can only be explained as death without actually dying. Inexperienced users will not have a pleasant trip, but will come out of it a much different person.

 

The inmate who has committed such awful acts would endure more pain, guilt and suffering than any physical revenge can bring them. They would return with a vastly different set of morals and a changed psychology, often with a great amount of faith/religion.

 

This method of treatment would be relatively humane and not very physically harmful. If it works, it would be the ultimate solution to "punishing" criminals, and the idea that they are "getting a taste of their own medicine" (even if it's only psychological) might even help satisfy our revenge.

 

Society would never let that happen, though. :lol:

[hellbellz]

Hammarabi's Code - ftw.

 

 

 

DOOMY, I'd say the punishment would rather be the person who spray painted whatever should get his property painted on.

[indy500fan]

"An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind"

 

 

 

Or it just leaves two people with one eye each.

[venomai]

"An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind"

 

 

 

Or it just leaves two people with one eye each.

 

In real life, fights don't stop simply because both parties have each had a hit.

 

:-k

 

 

 

In real life, it's often an endless cycle of equally (or more) violent retaliations.

[warri0r45]

I suggest you get familiar with the term "reoffending rates". :lol: There are more people who renew their crime after getting out, than those who play it clean after they served their sentence.

 

 

 

So obviously, nothing is changing in their brains while they spend time in prison. Nothing is deterring them from abusing a child again or mugging people with a large gang when they get out.

 

You're right, prison doesn't always help. In fact, over 60% of offenders are re-convicted within two years after release.[1]

 

 

 

However, that means about 40% of the offenders may be learning some kind of a lesson. In 2002, the U.S. prison population was at around 2 million persons.[2] This means up to 800,000 of those inmates may be released with lessons learned. Do they all deserve to die?

 

 

 

There are a number of inmates who manage to turn their lives around while in jail. Especially those who seek help. Many prison inmates live normal and otherwise innocent lives after serving their time. It would be a shame if all these now-great people were killed by acts of savage and useless revenge.

 

 

 

But I still keep wondering: Why a person who has molested children, killed people, robbed... Should be allowed to have any kind of "humane" treatment at all instead of just being thrown at a mob who can evaluate what he has done to other innocent people?

 

Because it's the 21st century. :?: Or should we scrap all that we've been striving for? Should we simply fall back to the savage past of our ancestors, killing anyone who opposes us?

 

 

 

IMO these "horrible" people are people who are born/raised with a different set of morals. Through proper psychological treatment we can shift their morals into the social norm, allowing them to think and act much like the rest of us.

 

Torturing them with "an eye for an eye" motive is a poor option; it makes us just as horrible and savage as the offender. It's also very rare that the offender learns any lessons. Getting tortured will only enrage the offender more, making them more violent and more aggressive.

 

Killing them is also a poor option; death is an easy way out and in no way should we allow them to damage our society without giving back to it.

 

 

 

Your mind would change in an instant if something bad had happened to your family member that had scarred him/her for life or even lead to his/her death or suicide.

 

I don't doubt it... And that is the ultimate power of revenge. :(

 

 

 

 

 

This is all speculation, but what about high doses of etheogens (psychedelic drugs) as a form of treatment? Take, for example, the LSD thumbprint -- where users ingest hundreds of hits worth of LSD crystals in a single lick of the thumb. The experience that follows can only be explained as death without actually dying. Inexperienced users will not have a pleasant trip, but will come out of it a much different person.

 

The inmate who has committed such awful acts would endure more pain, guilt and suffering than any physical revenge can bring them. They would return with a vastly different set of morals and a changed psychology, often with a great amount of faith/religion.

 

This method of treatment would be relatively humane and not very physically harmful. If it works, it would be the ultimate solution to "punishing" criminals, and the idea that they are "getting a taste of their own medicine" (even if it's only psychological) might even help satisfy our revenge.

 

Society would never let that happen, though. :lol:

 

 

 

Aye, this is the major problem here. Any huge society changing ideas are kept at arms length, even if they are ingenious, thanks to politicians who ride on the emotions of the credulous and unimaginative or uninviting masses.

 

 

 

I like the focus of reformation coming out of this - if there need be extremes, I don't see any particular problem in 'good, peace loving, society embracing' propoganda. It'd say it would work for most. I like the thinking out of the box associated with the LSD trip, too.

[Satenza]

Your mind would change in an instant if something bad had happened to your family member that had scarred him/her for life or even lead to his/her death or suicide.

 

 

 

Right but justice is a universal law that must be applicable to everyone. Basing your sense of justice on particulars rather than on the universal is naive and depending on the person, is dangerous. The "instant something bad happened" shows the flaw in your thinking, how rational does it seem to base a universal law on the thoughts of someone acting or thinking completely irrationally?

[Rsdude099]

Lol?

 

The world would be a better place if we were based on an eye for an eye.

 

All the murderers, killed.

 

Maybe a person who spray paints on another persons property, have their finger chopped off, I don't see why not :?

 

 

 

If justice was based on Eye for an eye for everything, who would rape the person that raped another person? I dont think Hammurabi went that far..

[BlueLancer]

Your mind would change in an instant if something bad had happened to your family member that had scarred him/her for life or even lead to his/her death or suicide.

 

 

 

Right but justice is a universal law that must be applicable to everyone. Basing your sense of justice on particulars rather than on the universal is naive and depending on the person, is dangerous. The "instant something bad happened" shows the flaw in your thinking, how rational does it seem to base a universal law on the thoughts of someone acting or thinking completely irrationally?

 

 

 

Given the way prisons are in most western societies, is the punishment proportionate to the damage you have caused to a person whose life you destroyed (or even killed)?

 

 

 

I nearly puked when I read in the newspaper, that human rights activists had protested against castrating chronic pedophiles (I think it was in Holland) medically. People who have reoffended, nonresponsive to councilation, for their whole lives.

 

 

 

What the heck? Just because it's not their child who had his/her life ruined, they can act pretentious and care about these people... What if this guy had creeped in on their kid? Would they still chant for his rights outside the courthouse?

[tryto]

 

 

 

You're right, prison doesn't always help. In fact, over 60% of offenders are re-convicted within two years after release.[1]

 

 

 

However, that means about 40% of the offenders may be learning some kind of a lesson. In 2002, the U.S. prison population was at around 2 million persons.[2] This means up to 800,000 of those inmates may be released with lessons learned. Do they all deserve to die?

 

 

 

There are a number of inmates who manage to turn their lives around while in jail. Especially those who seek help. Many prison inmates live normal and otherwise innocent lives after serving their time. It would be a shame if all these now-great people were killed by acts of savage and useless revenge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or Maybe they just got smarter and didn't get caught again.

[meol]

In jail, people live fairly comfortable. They don't work, yet they have a lot of leisure time. Of course their liberties are severely restricted, but they still live fairly well on the other people's taxes. Why can't there be some kind of system where an able prisoner gets the opportunity to choose between solitary confinement or forced labour? They could even do some good to society that way!

 

 

 

Now, trying to return to the original topic, killing a murderer won't bring the victim back, but it will restrain him from committing the same crime again. Nevertheless, death is a quick escape, (unless the criminal believes in a certain religion that says sinners will suffer after death in one way or another), why not make him pay, with work, for what he did?

[Rebdragon]

Given the way prisons are in most western societies, is the punishment proportionate to the damage you have caused to a person whose life you destroyed (or even killed)?

 

 

 

I nearly puked when I read in the newspaper, that human rights activists had protested against castrating chronic pedophiles (I think it was in Holland) medically. People who have reoffended, nonresponsive to councilation, for their whole lives.

 

 

 

What the heck? Just because it's not their child who had his/her life ruined, they can act pretentious and care about these people... What if this guy had creeped in on their kid? Would they still chant for his rights outside the courthouse?

 

Nope, because most people's care cups are only big enough for theirs, their immediate family's and maybe their friends' problems : .

 

 

 

Humans aren't bastards (mebe...), they just have limitations on how much they can care for/about certain people. Most people's c[_]'s need a bit of expanding, but eh, we're human.

[wildernessfreelancer]

Simply put, humans are controlled by the laws of Physics. Isaac Newton's 3rd Law of Motion states that when an object exerts a force on another object (a wall, for example) :wall: then the wall will exert the same amount of force back onto the object. In other words, action=reaction. Something bad done to you=you want to do the same thing back to the person. Physics, people, Physics. 8-) =D>

[warri0r45]

Simply put, humans are controlled by the laws of Physics. Isaac Newton's 3rd Law of Motion states that when an object exerts a force on another object (a wall, for example) :wall: then the wall will exert the same amount of force back onto the object. In other words, action=reaction. Something bad done to you=you want to do the same thing back to the person. Physics, people, Physics. 8-) =D>

 

 

 

I don't know whether you're joking or not, but way to grossly misapply a scientific law. A human neurological response to stimuli isn't akin to playing a game of cricket (my Aussie-centric example of Newtons 3rd law in play). If someone punches you in the face, your face goes in the opposite direction of the swinging fist, your fist dosen't swing back because of Newton's 3rd law.

[BlueLancer]

Simply put, humans are controlled by the laws of Physics. Isaac Newton's 3rd Law of Motion states that when an object exerts a force on another object (a wall, for example) :wall: then the wall will exert the same amount of force back onto the object. In other words, action=reaction. Something bad done to you=you want to do the same thing back to the person. Physics, people, Physics. 8-) =D>

 

 

 

Isaac Newton's laws and theories are based on science, not human psychology.

 

 

 

Think, if you're 16. A huge buffed guy comes at you, hits you in the face and brandishes a knife. Is your body telling you "activate primate fighting instict, hit him back" or "remember Isaac Newton's third law of motion"?

 

 

 

No, if you wanted to have any chance of surviving, you'd run away as fast as possible. I don't see how that applies in societal behaviour and retaliation.