Eye for an eye

[Bloodstain]

 

It is a much more successful method than the alternative of doing absolutely nothing to discourage crimes and evils.

 

Except the alternative isn't doing nothing. But whatever

[Zierro]

We were talking about the eye for an eye philosophy specifically there, in which case the alternative would be turning the other cheek like Jesus or Ghandi.

[Dupin]

Children who get grounded or spanked or a firm talk usually learn from it and don't repeat the offense.

Children who are grounded or spanked, especially after a specific age, end up with emotional issues and violent tendencies, as well as a dislike for rules and administration.

[Giordano]

Children who get grounded or spanked or a firm talk usually learn from it and don't repeat the offense.

Children who are grounded or spanked, especially after a specific age, end up with emotional issues and violent tendencies, as well as a dislike for rules and administration.

Hey I wasn't spanked after I was like three.

[OldJoe]

Children who get grounded or spanked or a firm talk usually learn from it and don't repeat the offense.

Children who are grounded or spanked, especially after a specific age, end up with emotional issues and violent tendencies, as well as a dislike for rules and administration.

Then every 40-50-60-70 year old would be violent.

[das1330]

You are missing a huge point, Zierro. You can't simply say "correlation doesn't imply causation" and then disregard all statistics someone can give to you. Comparing real studies with your heads/tails experiment is only ridiculing the work of plenty of social scientists and statisticians.

 

Correlation doesn't imply causation, but causation necessarily implies correlation, and that's what you are missing to see. If stronger punishments were a deterrent, we would necessarily see it correlating to some extent or another to less crime. If there is no such correlation, we can know that stronger punishments aren't a deterrent.

 

 

-On a side not, I removed quite some posts from the first pages. Flamewars and name calling won't do any good to anyone.

 

 

Statistically speaking effective enforcement works more effectively then tougher punishments.

[Bloodstain]

 

Then every 40-50-60-70 year old would be violent.

 

Violence isn't the only consequence. Although as far as I can remember, there is lots of debate on the topic of spanking and it's effects

[Skeptical]

Parents pretend that they're using it as a punishment, whereas in reality, they're using it as a method to express their anger.

 

And that's exactly what you want to teach your children: that violence, pain, punishment, anger, guilt and fear of authority are all inextricably linked.

[Zierro]

Children who get grounded or spanked or a firm talk usually learn from it and don't repeat the offense.

Children who are grounded or spanked, especially after a specific age, end up with emotional issues and violent tendencies, as well as a dislike for rules and administration.

 

If the punishment is unfair and unwarranted, I can see that. And yeah, after a certain age it turns from punishment to humiliation. However, there have been plenty cases where a parent's punishment has led to a less violent child.

 

Parents pretend that they're using it as a punishment, whereas in reality, they're using it as a method to express their anger.

 

And that's exactly what you want to teach your children: that violence, pain, punishment, anger, guilt and fear of authority are all inextricably linked.

 

If they are all inextricably linked why did you point out the difference between punishment and anger? I agree with your second sentence (with the tweaking of fear of authority to fear of breaching moral standards in general).

[EarthySun]

I think my point still stands: The 'eye for an eye' method is largely unsuccessful in what punishments are designed to do -- keep people from performing crimes. You would need an equal number of people willing to perform crimes on criminals, in ratio to the criminals themselves. Wouldn't that cause an issue?

 

Thoughts from OP and those in favor of the 'eye for an eye' method of punishment?

[Zierro]

I think my point still stands: The 'eye for an eye' method is largely unsuccessful in what punishments are designed to do -- keep people from performing crimes. You would need an equal number of people willing to perform crimes on criminals, in ratio to the criminals themselves. Wouldn't that cause an issue?

 

Thoughts from OP and those in favor of the 'eye for an eye' method of punishment?

 

Sure.

 

I think my point still stands: It is a much more successful method than the alternative of doing absolutely nothing to discourage crimes and evils. Children who get grounded or spanked or a firm talk usually learn from it and don't repeat the offense. Biologically, animals stay away from activities that lead to negative consequences. People want to reap the benefits of stealing, raping, fighting, etc. but they don't think it's worth getting into the trouble. People act based on self-interest all the time.

 

People tend to want to avoid negative consequences. If somebody breaks into a house and kills the family, and they get killed themselves because of that crime, it has been made more prevalent knowledge that you will suffer a negative consequence if you commit that crime, which discourages that crime. There are some who have no fear of dying or getting caught, which is why you still see crimes occur, but there are also those potential criminals who have reconsidered their thoughts and do not commit the crime purely because of the known consequence.

 

And about performing crimes on criminals (if that's the specific reason why you reiterated yourself), they are not crimes - they are punishments. There is a big difference.

[EarthySun]

I think my point still stands: The 'eye for an eye' method is largely unsuccessful in what punishments are designed to do -- keep people from performing crimes. You would need an equal number of people willing to perform crimes on criminals, in ratio to the criminals themselves. Wouldn't that cause an issue?

 

Thoughts from OP and those in favor of the 'eye for an eye' method of punishment?

 

Sure.

 

I think my point still stands: It is a much more successful method than the alternative of doing absolutely nothing to discourage crimes and evils. Children who get grounded or spanked or a firm talk usually learn from it and don't repeat the offense. Biologically, animals stay away from activities that lead to negative consequences. People want to reap the benefits of stealing, raping, fighting, etc. but they don't think it's worth getting into the trouble. People act based on self-interest all the time.

 

People tend to want to avoid negative consequences. If somebody breaks into a house and kills the family, and they get killed themselves because of that crime, it has been made more prevalent knowledge that you will suffer a negative consequence if you commit that crime, which discourages that crime. There are some who have no fear of dying or getting caught, which is why you still see crimes occur, but there are also those potential criminals who have reconsidered their thoughts and do not commit the crime purely because of the known consequence.

 

And about performing crimes on criminals (if that's the specific reason why you reiterated yourself), they are not crimes - they are punishments. There is a big difference.

 

I think you may have misread me. I never meant to say that nothing should be done about crimes (now that would be a crime in itself!), but that simply the 'eye for an eye' method is not nearly the most effective at preventing crimes nor punishing them. It may have an amusing ironic twist, say, to know that the rapist in the newspaper would indeed be raped himself. Your method also provides an authentic sense of justice: what could be more fair than having your own crime done to you? However, I think that it wouldn't work very well.

 

I consider the point of punishment to be the prevention of acts that you deem to be criminal. The real catch with the eye-for-an-eye system is that you would need criminals to punish the criminals. Let's go back to the rapist again: he would need someone willing to rape him in order to recieve punishment (and let's not forget lack of a prison term -- he'd be right back out on the streets). You would need a rapist to punish rapists, and a sort of 'it takes one to know one' approach. You would need somebody willing to rape people as his job, but not enjoy doing it, and get satisfaction from knowing that justice was done. Where would you find somebody like that?

 

Sure, you may say, 'Someone killed someone else! Shouldn't they be killed for this action?' Of course not. It all depends on what the scenario was -- let's say it was an accident, but it was caused by a negligible worker. The accident killed somebody, but it wasn't because of malicious intent, hatred, or any sort of thing. Should this 'murderer' be killed, or should be receive a lighter punishment? What happens if you hit somebody with your car because they fell by accident, but it was preventable in the way that you could have swerved the car and only injured yourself but kept that person alive today? I again remind you, there is supposedly no jail term for this, and so people can walk free after they have been punished. If I steal a very, very nice car, and it gets returned in perfect condition, and yet I am poor, should all of my possessions and paycheck get taken away and given to the rich man whom I stole from? I would prefer a jail term to a crippling financial debt equal to student loans.

 

As to everyone acting on self-interest: couldn't someone be framed for committing a crime, and then the accuser receive benefit? Let's say I pay the mafia to steal my car, and it is 'found' in the home of someone else (a non-mafioso). Even if this hoax were revealed, the punishment would be another hoax to be (attempted) to be committed on them.

[Zierro]

You're correct, and that's why "eye for an eye" can't be taken too literally. Forgive me for using the theft for theft example, as that's probably what gave you the impression I agree with rape for rape. It's "justice" (of getting what is deserved) for "malice" (of committing extreme atrocities to innocent people): a matter of the punishment equaling the crime. Not for the two to be completely the same, as that's simply impossible since crime and justice are two completely different concepts.

 

About the rapists, depending on the certain circumstances, the most deserving punishment for them would be on par with murderers. Theft isn't nearly as big of a deal as rape and murder, so a large fine seems fitting (since it is quite fittingly "possession for possession"). I definitely do not agree that stealing bread warrants cutting off someone's arm or life in jail for selling pills.

 

The current system does not give punishment equal to the crime. In some cases, they are being too harsh on harmless affairs. And in some cases, they are too lenient on extreme and disturbing crimes.

[EarthySun]

You're correct, and that's why "eye for an eye" can't be taken too literally. Forgive me for using the theft for theft example, as that's probably what gave you the impression I agree with rape for rape. It's "justice" (of getting what is deserved) for "malice" (of committing extreme atrocities to innocent people): a matter of the punishment equaling the crime. Not for the two to be completely the same, as that's simply impossible since crime and justice are two completely different concepts.

 

About the rapists, depending on the certain circumstances, the most deserving punishment for them would be on par with murderers. Theft isn't nearly as big of a deal as rape and murder, so a large fine seems fitting (since it is quite fittingly "possession for possession"). I definitely do not agree that stealing bread warrants cutting off someone's arm or life in jail for selling pills.

 

The current system does not give punishment equal to the crime. In some cases, they are being too harsh on harmless affairs. And in some cases, they are too lenient on extreme and disturbing crimes.

 

Personally, I think that the larger the penalty, the less chance there is of crime to happen. I think that the current system is reasonable, but fair (assuming you mean the United States' judicial system). Can you give me an example of something that's punished too harshly?

[Skeptical]

Piracy.

 

Huge penalties because you have created copies of a few songs.

[EarthySun]

Piracy.

 

Huge penalties because you have created copies of a few songs.

 

I didn't actually think of that, so touché to you. :P I think it would be fairer to charge the cost of the songs you bought, or instead to go after the company that is letting them get the songs.

[obfuscator]

Well if you just charge the cost of the songs you bought the company loses an enormous amount of time and money prosecuting you for a few hundred dollars.

[Bloodstain]

Well if you just charge the cost of the songs you bought the company loses an enormous amount of time and money prosecuting you for a few hundred dollars.

 

But what if I bought a CD and made a bunch of copies for my friends and family? I own the CD, I should be able to do with it whatever I please.

 

 

Personally, I think that the larger the penalty, the less chance there is of crime to happen

 

no

[sees_all1]

Well if you just charge the cost of the songs you bought the company loses an enormous amount of time and money prosecuting you for a few hundred dollars.

 

But what if I bought a CD and made a bunch of copies for my friends and family? I own the CD, I should be able to do with it whatever I please.

 

You own that CD, but you don't own the contents of the CD. You didn't buy the intellectual property on the CD to do as you please, you bought the physical media to license the contents so you could listen to it whenever you wanted to.

 

Same way as if you bought a book and make hundreds of photocopies of it, distributed those copies, you'd be breaking copyright laws.

 

 

EDIT:

To try and stay on topic, an eye for an eye wouldn't work in theft scenarios. If a bum on the street with no wealth stole a newspaper and then destroyed it, how do you punish him accordingly?

[Bloodstain]

 

To try and stay on topic, an eye for an eye wouldn't work in theft scenarios. If a bum on the street with no wealth stole a newspaper and then destroyed it, how do you punish him accordingly?

 

That's not even something that would make it to courts/involve a charge, so nothing

[sees_all1]

 

To try and stay on topic, an eye for an eye wouldn't work in theft scenarios. If a bum on the street with no wealth stole a newspaper and then destroyed it, how do you punish him accordingly?

 

That's not even something that would make it to courts/involve a charge, so nothing

Same bum steals the hope diamond, hides it, but gets caught and the diamond can't be found.

What's the equivalent punishment?

[Zierro]

Can you give me an example of something that's punished too harshly?

 

Some traffic violations, some sex offender acts (streaking down the neighborhood shouldn't put you in the same category as a rapist), drug possession, piracy, littering, prostitution, etc.

 

None of those are even close to the same level of malice as murder and rape and abuse.

 

Same bum steals the hope diamond, hides it, but gets caught and the diamond can't be found.

What's the equivalent punishment?

 

Forced labor.

[sees_all1]

Same bum steals the hope diamond, hides it, but gets caught and the diamond can't be found.

What's the equivalent punishment?

 

Forced labor.

For how long?

[Zierro]

I have no idea how much the diamond costs or how much profit the labor yields. We already have community service which works in the same vein, but only not for profit. So it sounds reasonable to use a similar system to that, especially if you've committed theft and are unable to pay out of your own pocket.

[Shiny]

What I think falls flat is the actual subjectivity of an eye for eye, using your logic Crusty. Who is to decide what punishment fits the crime, and have the same standard of punishment across the range of crimes 'available'. Right now, people who create the punishments seem to think they fit the crime, but you don't. This whole business really is one big melting pot of subjectivity, and there will always be people who disagree.