Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The Eye for an Eye policy is brutal in a civilized nation that is spending millions in attempts to rehabilitate criminals. Not everyone can be changed, but it doesn't come close to the savagery of executing millions of prisoners for their crimes.

At 7/9/03 09:31 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: The Eye for an Eye policy is brutal in a civilized nation that is spending millions in attempts to rehabilitate criminals. Not everyone can be changed, but it doesn't come close to the savagery of executing millions of prisoners for their crimes.

....Killing people isn't "eye for an eye," unless they also killed someone. Eye for an eye is getting done to you what you did to someone else. I think it's good because it teaches often ignorant criminals that they did something wrong, by putting them in their victim's shoes. Like, if you rape someone, you get raped. That way, I bet we wouldn't get as many rapists saying "raping a woman isn't a big deal" or "I thought she wanted to be raped." Heh heh. Afterall, I think it would make them think twice before they do it again to someone. In fact, I think "eye for an eye" IS a good way to rebilitate criminals. We have so many criminals now that have no idea or refuse to believe what they did was wrong, because they never were able to experience or understand it from the point of view of their victims'.

Like, if you steal a stereo, then you get something of yours stolen. If you steal a car, then you aren't allowed to drive for a certain amount of time, or better yet, you have to pay for that person's new car. Etc. etc.

At 7/9/03 09:31 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: The Eye for an Eye policy is brutal in a civilized nation that is spending millions in attempts to rehabilitate criminals. Not everyone can be changed, but it doesn't come close to the savagery of executing millions of prisoners for their crimes.

"An eye for an Eye leaves everyone blind"
Martin Luther King

At 7/9/03 10:05 PM, DarkCyrstal wrote:

At 7/9/03 09:31 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

"An eye for an Eye leaves everyone blind"
Martin Luther King

Asuming that half the people on earth stab out someone elses eye. lol.

Course, if the eye for an eye theory was in effect, I doubt many would want to do it anymore. It would be a good lesson to teach eye stabbers not to do that anymore. ^_-

At 7/9/03 10:30 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

At 7/9/03 10:05 PM, DarkCyrstal wrote:

At 7/9/03 09:31 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

"An eye for an Eye leaves everyone blind"
Martin Luther King

Asuming that half the people on earth stab out someone elses eye. lol.

Course, if the eye for an eye theory was in effect, I doubt many would want to do it anymore. It would be a good lesson to teach eye stabbers not to do that anymore. ^_-

I catch your sacastic haha. BUT, you havn;t saud anything against that staement so there blah :p

At 7/9/03 10:35 PM, DarkCyrstal wrote:

At 7/9/03 10:30 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

At 7/9/03 10:05 PM, DarkCyrstal wrote:

At 7/9/03 09:31 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

"An eye for an Eye leaves everyone blind"
Martin Luther King

Asuming that half the people on earth stab out someone elses eye. lol.

Course, if the eye for an eye theory was in effect, I doubt many would want to do it anymore. It would be a good lesson to teach eye stabbers not to do that anymore. ^_-

I catch your sacastic haha. BUT, you havn;t saud anything against that staement so there blah :p

I did. Not as many people would stab out other people's eyes if the eye for an eye theory was in effect. So, we would wind up with LESS people blind overall.

However, I understand Mr. King's statement. But he wasn't using it in context with the court systems. He was using it to prevent vigilantos, and people intent on fulfilling their own sense of personal justice. I agree that the eye for an eye theory shouldn't apply to social situations, because, like Mr. King said, you rarely wind up any better in the situation than before (perhaps even worse).

However. It is the purpose of the court systems to punish and rebilitate (and punishment is a part of rebilitating. Think of it as a "spanking" a bad kid. If you never spank the kid, they turn into an even worse brat. lol.). Therefore, in the court environment, the eye for an eye theory does work, because it is no longer as much of a personal battle.

Like this. If you hate someone and want to stab his eye out right now, you are threatend with a 3 year prison sentence. @_o' You know you don't risk any bodily harm or "unfixable" harm to yourself, unlike your victim. However, if you knew before you stabbed that guy's eye out, that you would be put in a room and have your own eye stabbed out to feel your victim's pain, do you think you would be as likely to go through with it?
-----------
Mr. King was saying to the African-Americans who wanted to, say, take it into their own hands to kill some white folks for killing their family members, that now you would just have two sides even more angry at one another than before, which would cause even more blood shed.

However, if a court convicts you, then it's pretty difficult to kill the court (though you can still take it out on the victim's family, it is less likely because they have little to do with the actual conviction, would be protected by the courts, and wouldn't be the ones punishing him, the courts would be).

So, I agree with Mr. King's statement as it applied to personal vengence. However, it wasn't used in context with capital punishment in the court systems (or other eye for an eye judicial practices), but with the personal vengence of those wrongfully discriminated against during the more rasicst era in American history.

All in all, it's a good quote. But the way it was used doesn't apply to this situation. That's all. ^_-

ok, Eye for an eye. You retalliate, they retalliate back. There will always be a counter.

"For everyaction there is an opistiate and equal reaction"

I thought "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." was Gandhi?

At 7/9/03 11:14 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: I thought "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." was Gandhi?

it might have been but King claimed it was him. I don't know or think Ghandi used those words, (since and eye for an eye, was not a normal Hindu Saying"wink wink") but it was popular in America in about that time. Though Ghandi ruled by that nature, i really do not think that Indian People went around saying "An Eye for an Eye my, good friend."

Martine Luther king Used a popular saying "An eye for an eye", but came back with a more logical reply to it.

At 7/9/03 11:11 PM, DarkCyrstal wrote: ok, Eye for an eye. You retalliate, they retalliate back. There will always be a counter.

"For everyaction there is an opistiate and equal reaction"

Once again, that doesn't apply to the court systems, but again with personal vengence. When the court convicts someone of murdering someone in your family, it is not so much "your retalitation" as it is "American justice for all." Hence, they are not likely to retaliate against the family, who had nothing to do with the sentence.
----------
However, I am aware that there are a few freaky people who do take out their loved one's conviction on the victim's families. However, this isn't so much related to the "eye for an eye" theory in particular, as it is to punishment in general. Afterall, the only point you would have against it would be to say, "if a man is a serial rapists, and as punishment, he has to serve life in prison, then his freaky family is less likely to take vengence than if they had him raped a couple of times by some guys and then let him go." However, that's obviousy not the case. If that freaky family member was going to take vengence on his loved one's conviction, he was going to do it regardless whether it applied to the eye for an eye theory or not. He was just going to do it because of the punishment period. And you can't argue against that, because the only way to stop situations like this from happening would be to not punish the person's loved one at all. Which is obviously not a good idea, either.

Afterall, "retaliation," doesn't always mean "eye for an eye." So, using that same logic, you could say that it would be more appropriote not to punish anyone for their crimes ever, for fear of the retaliation by freaky family members. I say, if there are a few freaky family members who want to retaliate, then they would have done so, regardless if the punishment involved "eye for and eye" or not. So, while we're at it, we might as well make the most appropriate punishment for the crime anyway.
------------
Also, when people hear the term "eye for an eye" they always seem to think that it entails bad things. However, that's not the case. Eye for an eye is actually the most appropriote way to make sure the the punishment matches the crime exactly. We wouldn't have different judges giving different, and often unfair, punishments for the same crimes.

Like this. A man who robbed a convenience store, was sent to prison for life in one state. @_o' Obviously, not fair.

Then, another man who murdered his wife, only served 2 years in prison in another state. Obviously not fair in the opposite way.

However, if both men got the "eye for an eye" theory applied to them. Then they both would have gotten exactly what they diserve to a T. See what I mean?
---------------

Also, I think that the eye for an eye theory is good for rebilitation.

Like this. I'm sure we've all had to deal with a bully in school at one point or another. In my experiences, these bullies usually get sent to the principle's office or serve dentention over and over again, and yet STILL continue to bully you. This is a good metaphor for today's court systems and their lack of effect on many criminals.

However, when you turn around and wack these bullies back (or get your big brother to do it. lol), though you get punished yourself, that bully rarely ever bugs you again. Why? Because he's learned for once that if he hits someone, he might get hit back, and more importantly, he's learned what it's like to feel his victim's pain.

Punishment is a part of rebilitation. Like spanking your kid for having a tantrum. They learn not to have a tantrum again. Animals do this in the wild to teach their young, as well (and I'm not talking about spanking, obviously, but about punishment). I think the court systems become the parents to these criminals.

Also, I think the eye for an eye theory would be particularly successful in rebilitation because it teaches them not to do it again. Unlike most sentences. Firstly, if you stab some guy's eye out and then get yours stabbed out equally. Do you think you'd ever go out and stab someone's eye out again? I doubt it.

Also, it would change the perspectives of self-richeous criminals. Like the many rapists or wife-beaters who still think there is nothing wrong with raping or beating women or who even think that the women they raped wanted to be raped. These men very frequently go out and rape again, because they don't understand or refuse to believe that there is anything wrong with their behavior towards women.

However, put these guys in a room and let them get raped by another big guy, and I'm pretty sure they'd figure out that women don't like to be raped. lol. And, also, if you are raped by a big guy for your crime of rape, I'm pretty sure you'd be less likely to do it again, knowing exactly what's in store for you. What do you think?

-------

Well, that's where I stand on all that. ^_^ So, you see. The eye for an eye theory isn't based on "vengence," it's based on fitting the punishment with the crime. It's based on protecting the the lesser criminals, and to make sure the worse ones get what's coming to them. And most importantly, to rebilitate and teach criminals to understand how their victim's feel and to make them fear doing it again, better convincing them to not continue their crimes.

If I'm thinking properly this night/morning(?), eye for an eye is actually Karma and that comandement "do not do unto others something something". Basically, if you kick somebody in the face you should pay for his/her medical bills and then get kicked in the face yourself.

At 7/10/03 12:02 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: If I'm thinking properly this night/morning(?), eye for an eye is actually Karma and that comandement "do not do unto others something something". Basically, if you kick somebody in the face you should pay for his/her medical bills and then get kicked in the face yourself.

The two problems with that are that the bible shouldn't have pull in the courtroom, and the U.S. justice system would only make the defendant pay for the medical bills of the victim, which is how it should be.

At 7/10/03 12:02 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: If I'm thinking properly this night/morning(?), eye for an eye is actually Karma and that comandement "do not do unto others something something". Basically, if you kick somebody in the face you should pay for his/her medical bills and then get kicked in the face yourself.

Thats not a commandment. God would say "love thine neighbor" in such a circumstance. Im religious however it would be hard for me to follow that guideline.

At 7/10/03 02:50 AM, BWS wrote:

At 7/10/03 12:02 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote:

Thats not a commandment. God would say "love thine neighbor" in such a circumstance. Im religious however it would be hard for me to follow that guideline.

Especially if your neighbor is a convicted rapist.

Well...I'll try to keep this short. *cough*

I've never made it a secret (except from my parents) that I was date raped. It's something that I've accepted, that I've used to help people, talked on, studied, and all that. It wasn't one of those confusing things either, where one party thought it was okay, while the other thinks it's rape. It was clearly nonconsentual. But there's something here that I want to mention.

Please, no one (especially females) take this the wrong way. But it wasn't just his fault. It was obviously his choice to do it, and I had no way of stopping him, but I had put myself in a very dangerous situation. I was drunk out of my mind, I was semi-unconscious, and I never should have gotten THAT intoxicated around people I don't know. While I know it isn't my fault I was raped, I did put myself in a situation that led to it. By no means should he be held less responsible, but I do think that women need to be more careful around men they don't know, even if they 'seem okay'.

As for the rape pregnancy. I can understand why a woman would want to abort a baby conceived that way, but I, for one, wouldn't. It's a very individual thing, and me personally? I know that it's not that baby's fault. I also know that it's possible to have a child that was conceived by rape, and have it be a very good thing come from something horrific.

I worked with a woman who's 10 year old daughter was conceived when the mother was raped. I sat and talked with her for a while about it, because at the time I was forming a Youth For Life group and speaking publically about such things, and she very obviously loved her daughter. I asked her everything you can imagine, especially the all important: "When you look at her, aren't you reminded of him? Isn't that hard?"

Her answer (paraphrased, but I remember it very, very well. I used it in a speech that I had memorized): "You're so young, you can't know the love a mother has for her kids. It's lots different than how you love your mom or dad, or friends, or boyfriend, or things like that. It's totally unexplainable, how you go from scared to unsure, to excited and finally she's like...born and you're holding her, and all that hate just washed away from me, you know? She's the best thing that ever happened to me. I wish she could've been conceived in love instead of...y'know...but I stopped thinking about that years ago. She's my daughter. I love her more than I can say."

Obviously, not everyone would feel that way. But she did. Plenty of other mothers do.

I completely and utterly disagree that any woman who dressed provocatively 'deserves' it. Nuff said.

::applaud::

Very, very well spoken, House.

At 7/10/03 01:14 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

At 7/10/03 12:02 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: If I'm thinking properly this night/morning(?), eye for an eye is actually Karma and that comandement "do not do unto others something something". Basically, if you kick somebody in the face you should pay for his/her medical bills and then get kicked in the face yourself.

The two problems with that are that the bible shouldn't have pull in the courtroom, and the U.S. justice system would only make the defendant pay for the medical bills of the victim, which is how it should be.

If someone told you they would give you $1,000 dollars to kick you in the face, would you let them? How about if then you had to use that exact $1,000 to pay for the bills, winding up with nothing but going through a lot of pain for perhaps 200 bucks left over? Well, that's our court system.

Heck, there are a lot of people I'd like to kick in the face for 200 bucks. Course, that's not what I'm worried about. I'm worried that I'd get kicked back. lol. So, once again, "eye for an eye" or bodily harm prevails over losing a bit of money (not what I call justice).

There's a big problem with the "eye for an eye" system. How would you deal with someone who brutally mutilated and murdered several people. You can only kill him once. That doesn't seem like a good enough punishment. You could put him through some kind of unimaginable torture, but where would you get the sadistic freak to carry out the sentence? And, if you can really put another person through that, how are you any better than they are?

On the flip side, how would you punish a car theif? If he stole a car, he probably doesn't have one that can be confiscated and if he does, it probably isn't as nice as the one he stole. You could make him pay for it, but if he has the money, than it's no big deal. If he doesn't have the money and it forces him to lose his house and everything he owns then that's cruel and unusual.

The way I see it, some time in jail is a good punishment for everyday criminals. It teaches them not to commit crimes, and if it doesn't, their crimes aren't that terrible anyway. Murderers and rapists can never be punished properly by our justice system. Life's not fair. Maybe they'll get what they deserve in the after life (if there is one).

At 7/10/03 03:40 PM, dudeitsallama wrote: There's a big problem with the "eye for an eye" system. How would you deal with someone who brutally mutilated and murdered several people. You can only kill him once. That doesn't seem like a good enough punishment. You could put him through some kind of unimaginable torture, but where would you get the sadistic freak to carry out the sentence? And, if you can really put another person through that, how are you any better than they are?

Well, I think killing him once would be good enough. Sheesh. Afterall, I'm not worried about getting the "eye for an eye" part to a T. And I especially wouldn't say, "well, since we can't kill him more than once, let's just not kill him at all." lol. Not a good idea. I'm just concerned that that man experiences what he did to his victims first hand. And mainly, I'm more concerned about a punishment that matches the crime more so than the punishments they dish out today. Like, "life in prison" for a serial killer. @_o' Yeah, that'll show him. Sheesh.

Also, as for that "how are you any better than..." thing, it depends on who you are doing it to, and more importantly, why. I don't think that a sniper who shot Hitler for causing the line-ups and shootings of so many Jews, then "becomes as bad as Hitler."

No. Once again, in cases of serial killers, the eye for an eye theory can't kill him over again. But, I think having him stare down the barrel of a gun and feeling the same fear would be good enough.

Also, the doctor who puts people to death under capital punishment, isn't "a serial killer" either, because you have to also look at why he's doing it. He's doing it because the court told him to, and he's not getting any joy out of killing. Therefore, if you really want to be "eye for an eye" I think you can see how the eye of the doctor doesn't quite match the eye of the murderer. lol. That's how he's better than the serial killer.

On the flip side, how would you punish a car theif? If he stole a car, he probably doesn't have one that can be confiscated and if he does, it probably isn't as nice as the one he stole. You could make him pay for it, but if he has the money, than it's no big deal. If he doesn't have the money and it forces him to lose his house and everything he owns then that's cruel and unusual.

lol. Sheesh. Once again, I'm not apting for a "perfect utopia" where the eye for an eye theory must apply to a T and to everything. lol. Firstly, if he stole someone's car, and they can't get to work, etc. etc. then how is making him pay for the car (god forbid) cruel and unusual? If he didn't want to lose his house, then just maybe he shouldn't have stolen from someone else to begin with. You know, that's why it's called "punishment." If we make sure that the guy makes out with a scratch, then that wouldn't quite deter him from doing it again, considering that he sees the court is trying to protect him from suffering at all.

I'd say, you have the family chose to take something of equal value that belongs to him, or have him pay for the car, or go to prison. It would be the family's choice. That way, whoever the guy is, they can decide what would be the most equal punishment for him. That's how "eye for an eye" works. ^_-

In fact, I never quite got that "cruel and unusual" thing considering that, when you think about it, prison is perhaps the MOST unusual punishment of all. Firstly, it rarely EVER matches it's crimes, you throw someone in a little room and never let them leave or have contact with other people aside from other criminals and their family members through a little piece of glass. And they can only go outside in a yard with a big wall surrounding them. And they live like this for a certain number of years. Jeez. Sounds a little weird and unusual to me. Just because we've grown up with the idea, doesn't make it any less creative and bizarre.

Still, an Eye for an Eye is an extremely brutal and savage policy that any civilized nation should go right past. I'd rather let our quasi-professional court system go to work on a criminal than to see him dragged out into the street and shot for murdering someone. Think of the children!

The way I see it, some time in jail is a good punishment for everyday criminals. It teaches them not to commit crimes, and if it doesn't, their crimes aren't that terrible anyway. Murderers and rapists can never be punished properly by our justice system. Life's not fair. Maybe they'll get what they deserve in the after life (if there is one).

Firstly, I think we should let their victims decide how "terrible anyway" their crimes where. Not you.

Also, I never heard the term "everyday" criminals. Who classifies in that group? What about rapists? What about molesters? What about wife-beaters? What about murderers?

The problem with prison, which I stated earlier, was that IT DOESN'T TEACH THEM NOT TO DO IT AGAIN. Why? Most rapists don't even realize that they did something wrong. The same applies to wife beaters. Or, even worse, they just don't care. And why should they? No one risks bodily harm for their crimes in our court systems, so is it any wonder that bodily harm is a common practice among criminals today? What do they really risk? And how do they learn that what they did was wrong? Because someone else is telling them it is by "punishing" them? No, they need to really learn that it's wrong. And, for burgulers and robbers, they often just wind up getting worse in prison.

Um. Don't you think that the fact that murderers and rapists are not getting punished properly by our court systems the problem to begin with? And I wouldn't depend on "heaven" or the "life's not fair" clause to suffice the victims or their families...and more importantly, I wouldn't depend on it to teach them a lesson or to convince them to never do it again. lol.

I hope you do realize that, once again, I am not apting for the "eye for an eye" theory to apply to every crime imaginable. Of course not. I think in particular cases, however, it should be available as a choice. Such as in the case of rapists and murderers, etc. I think that the court should have the ability to apply the eye for an eye theory to criminals if they see it fit as an appropriate punishment or as an appropriote means of reabilitating them (such as in the cases of the many rapists who feel that they didn't do anything wrong-----this is important, because as long as they feel their actions are justified, they often go out and do it again).
---------------

And finally. I can't help but noticing that both you and Judge seem to think that the eye for an eye theory is all about "vengence" and "punishment."

Well, obviously, that's not the case. The eye for an eye theory is based on making sure that the punishment matches the crime.

Now, you seem to think that I want the eye for an eye theory only to apply in cases where criminals aren't getting enough punishment. But that's not true.

I am equally concerned about criminals that are receiving TOO MUCH punishment for small crimes. What about that example I gave in which that young man was sent to prison for life for robbing a convenience store? What about the other young man who had his friends tag him along on a different convenience store robbery, and wound up with just as much prison time as his friends, even though he didn't do anything?

You only talked about prison as a good way to "punish everyday criminals." But I wasn't concerned about punishment. What about when these people don't deserve to be punished to that extent? The point is that prison ISN'T a good way to punish criminals, because it's impact varies from criminal to criminal, based on different judges and different states, etc. etc.

The problem with the prison system is that it rarely EVER matches the crimes. It either punishes people too little, causing them to continue to be a threat to society. Or it punishes them too much, possibly damaging the futures of small time criminals even more so, when they could have been rebilitated.

Also, once again, I was not apting for an eye for an eye theory "utopia." I just think that if it was applied to at least a FEW cases (such as the crime of rape, wife-beating, murder, etc), it would greatly benefit our society.

At 7/10/03 05:57 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

The way I see it, some time in jail is a good punishment for everyday criminals. It teaches them not to commit crimes, and if it doesn't, their crimes aren't that terrible anyway. Murderers and rapists can never be punished properly by our justice system. Life's not fair. Maybe they'll get what they deserve in the after life (if there is one).

Firstly, I think we should let their victims decide how "terrible anyway" their crimes where. Not you.

The U.S. Court System is not about vengeance, but about justice. If I had been forced to have my leg amputated as a result of a gunshot wound from a criminal, I would certainly wish him death. However, this is a completely irrational demand. Vengeance just doesn't work in the Court System.

At 7/10/03 05:55 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Still, an Eye for an Eye is an extremely brutal and savage policy that any civilized nation should go right past. I'd rather let our quasi-professional court system go to work on a criminal than to see him dragged out into the street and shot for murdering someone. Think of the children!

LOL. Now you're just trying to make it too emotional. Obviously, if a guy shoots someone to death, children won't be involved in his punishment. lol. Nor would a street filled with people. If that is truly your idea of the "eye for an eye" system, then I can see why you are so against it. lol. ^_-

If he shoots someone to death, then I say we give the victim's family the choice to give him an old fashion firing squad to do the job. Obviously, away from public eye. That way he could feel the same fear as his victim and won't be protected from experiences what he did to his victim, the definition of punishment. I think if that would be the only thing to suffice the family, then let them have that choice. Who are we to judge them for it?

Remember, we are a civilized nation with many uncivilized people. If people act civilized, even in their crimes, then they should be treated that way. If people act uncivilized, particularly in their crimes, then they should be treated that way. Why should we treat uncivilized criminals in a civilized manner?

Also, we are civilized nation, with rapists who never get to experience a decent punishment for their crimes. we are a civilized nation, with small time crooks, who wind up with big time sentences. We are a civilized nation that has no idea how to properly punish it's criminals, and no idea how to stop them from doing it again. We are a civilized nation who dubs the unusual punishment of prison, to be "OK" simply because we've grown up with it, and no longer find it as peculiar as it is.

All in all, crime is not civilized. And if the victims do not wish their attackers to be treated better than they were. Then I think that that is their choice. Not ours. And I definetly don't think that it would be our place to judge them for their choices.

At 7/10/03 06:00 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

At 7/10/03 05:57 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

The way I see it, some time in jail is a good punishment for everyday criminals. It teaches them not to commit crimes, and if it doesn't, their crimes aren't that terrible anyway. Murderers and rapists can never be punished properly by our justice system. Life's not fair. Maybe they'll get what they deserve in the after life (if there is one).

Firstly, I think we should let their victims decide how "terrible anyway" their crimes where. Not you.

The U.S. Court System is not about vengeance, but about justice. If I had been forced to have my leg amputated as a result of a gunshot wound from a criminal, I would certainly wish him death. However, this is a completely irrational demand. Vengeance just doesn't work in the Court System.

A) My point still stands.

B) The eye for an eye theory isn't about "vengence." It's about matching the punishment with the crimes if the victims or court sees fit (to prevent unfair punishments, too big or too little, and to better teach and rebilitate criminals so that they learn what they did was wrong, and to better convince them not to do it again). Did you or did you not read the 7 paragraphs about that?

Well, all in all, I just have to say that, considering our system of "punishment and rebilitation" isn't working NOW (noting all the examples I gave). Then I don't think trying something new would exactly make the situation any worse than it is.

I you don't agree in the eye for an eye theory, then that's your choice. ^_^ However, I just don't think that we should "can" one theory because we think it won't work. My point is, we don't know until we try. And it would be silly to judge something because we think it would entail something "bad," when in actuality, it may not at all.

And overall, I don't think it would be our place to call a murder victim's family "as bad as the murderer" for justifiably wanting him to feel the exact same pain and ending as their loved one did. If that is their choice, then I think we should let them have it. Afterall, it's not society's or our place to judge the victims.

The same applies to rape or molested victims, if that is also their choice.

I can see your point a bit clearer now, and I respect you very much as a debater for following through with your point this long. I see what you mean when you say rehabilitation isn't working, but I think there are other methods before resorting to Eye for an Eye. However, I can see using it in moderation in places like...oh...Texas?

Holy #($*! @_o' Now, this is a good example of why I am for "eye for an eye." Our court systems just don't do it for cases like this. 18 years? For that? .......*sigh* That is just so wrong.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/15/captive.women.ap/index.html

At 7/9/03 09:31 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: The Eye for an Eye policy is brutal in a civilized nation that is spending millions in attempts to rehabilitate criminals. Not everyone can be changed, but it doesn't come close to the savagery of executing millions of prisoners for their crimes.

An eye for and eye makes the whole world blind. People make mistakes but it is true that all "criminals" cannot reform their ways to safely live in society amongst us.

It's natural, of course, for people to have huge responses to the attacks. We are a passionate people — witness rock music, football, space heroes, flappers, all the way back to tea rotting in Boston Harbor. We honor gut responses. But it's not appropriate to act impulsively. We have no excuse; we are no longer a young country expanding into a continent where we proceed, seemingly, without consequence. We are part of a world community and everyone knows it: it's the 21st century. Anything we do has repercussions.
Source: Clive Matson

To justify the death sentence is to accept that there comes a stage in a human being where we can conclude that this man is now beyond repair, beyond learning, beyond transformation or reformation, beyond the hope of doing anything which will be of any use to any member of society. A sense of good prevailing over evil makes us feel safe inside this unsafe and violent world.

At 7/9/03 02:20 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: "the government should ban abortion and force the woman to carry her child to term."

Ok...Well I think that there should atleast be exceptions to anti-abortion methods..Such as rape. Mst definently, because it isn't something expected, you didn't want it to happen, the woman did not have the choice to prevent it. There is a difference in careless sex and something without choice

:"It's the girl's fault anyway. No one just gets raped. She had to have done something to deserve it. If you dress in skirts or like a slut, you shouldn't be able to go to court against the rapist. You had it coming. "

I think this girl is starting to really scare me..I think we should be able to wear what we want without having to fear walking down a street about getting killed or raped. I mean..What about people who get killed for wearing "the wrong colors" . Did they deserve it too? Because they should KNOW not to wear clothes like that? That statement can be mixed about for anything really and in the end there are too many exceptions. So I really dont think you had it coming because you wanted to wear short skirts or for looking/feeling attractive. I mean, not all guys are into short skirt chicks. They can be raped cause the guy liked fat/short/young girls etc...ALSO no one desevres to be put through such hell , no matter what, even if they DID do something horrible. and normally, they didn't, and rapist just go for someone vulnerable. Yes..They some DO just get raped for no reason.

Normally rapist dont care what the girl really looks like, behaviour therapists mainly point out that they are turned on by the fear and struggle of the girl alone.
Im done my rant though heh.