To see or not to see...

1/5/2015

“An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.” Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Should one’s punishment be equal to one’s crime?

14 Comments

Marc Casalini

1/6/2015 10:47:43 am

I for one agree that ones crime should be equal to ones punishment. I see it as this, If your willing to take someones life just because you wanted to. Should mean that someone should take the killers life the same way they did to the innocent persons life. If the law were to be if you killed someone on purpose or because you felt like it. Then you said face the same death as the person you killed. If the government would have this law put in place murder rates would drop. The killer would look at it and say man if i shot this person with a shotgun then stab them multiple times then the same will happen to me. Do I really wanna suffer that much pain. So I believe that our government should enlist this law.

Gavin N.

1/7/2015 08:53:41 am

I think that punishment should be delt with sentences pertaining to the crimes. This system would be used as a deterrent for certain crimes. Stealing would have you lose double of what you stole in value, Murder would incur death, and Rape would be punished by life in prison, working to help the victim out. I think that this would help reshape our society in the sense that crimes would go under greater scrutinisation. This increase in sentence would also have to incur a more evidence based justice system, unlike the one we have today. Some may argue that this system is brutal or unlawful in it's stature, but really it is all about equality. This equality would make you think twice about doing certain things in fear of the repercussions. This system is perfect in theory, but may need to be elaborated on in practice, for like communism, there is large error for human mistakes.

Kaley Kempf

1/7/2015 02:18:11 pm

I believe one's punishment should be equal to one's crime. This philosophy can be seen as a deterrent. For people who are self-aware and take responsibility for their actions, this theory works. It will enforce the fact that thinking twice is necessary before committing any crime or ambitious act. Someone with an active conscious would be able to tell the difference between right and wrong if they knew the same act would eventually come back at them. Bold acts would become an anomaly in our society if this was truly put into action. For example, random spurts of violence occurring daily would not be as common. Based on the fact you would be injured or even killed just as harshly as was your victim, why would anyone want to suffer themselves just to witness someone else's pain?

Kevin Bachman

1/8/2015 02:07:10 am

The term eye for an eye, comes from a medieval, barbaric law system. Put into place in the middle east in 570 CE, Known as Sharia law. The thought that equal punishment for the crime is like a lot of things would work well in theory, but doesn't work in practice. Do to the issue of small petty crimes, the court system would have to take care of a lot of cases. There would be a lot of people with missing body parts, leave the world looking like a leper colony. On the bright side organ donations would plentiful. I don't what would happen if the guilty party is later found innocent, do to this possibility it would slow the court system down even more then it is now. Only reason it works in the middle east is due to their social system is the rich men get a voice and anyone else is out of luck, because they don't care about the lower class.

Lauren

1/8/2015 06:44:58 am

I believe that someone should be punished equally to the crime they have committed. If someone murders or causes great pain to someone, they should experience it as well. They shouldn't have to sit and watch the victim in pain without understanding what they are going through. The punishment should be decided based on the crime, but a criminal shouldn't be let free under any circumstances after committing a crime. They make decisions for themselves, therefore they should expect the consequences. I feel as if more punishments were delivered, the rate of crime would decrease. Although some people may believe it is too violent to do this, it is more about equality to the criminal as it is to the victim. Most of the time the victim did nothing to deserve what they have to live through, or to be killed, so why should the criminal get to live freely, or just have to sit in jail? They should receive a punishment equal to what they committed. Equality is very important to enforce in all ways.

Collin Reich

1/8/2015 07:35:23 am

Back in simpler days, when governments were being fine tuned and justice and law were being updated, any eye for an eye was a popular practice in upholding the law. But this way of judgement and punishment isn't the best way of law and order (not the show). If one were to dismember another say their arm, would amputation of the arm be the most effective way of solving the problem? Where is the justice in that?! Our modern justice system works completely different than back then. If someone were to dismember ones arm today, they would be tried then put in solitude with other criminals for a period of time. The only real justice "an eye for an eye" would bring would be the death of another human, but this too can be argued. I mean bringing about karma on someone isn't going to fix any thing.

Christopher Keithline

1/8/2015 07:41:17 am

An eye for an eye is a common phrase used in today's society. It is commonly used for crime and consequences. If you are to commit a crime of bad values, then you shall have the same percussions of that crime. I totally agree with the phrase. If one person murders another person then that person should have the same consequences. That person shoukd be killed also. This phrase also shows what can happen if one shall commit a crime. For example, the Boston suspects that killed people in the marathon. Because of the killing of the people, they should also be killed for their actions. One of the suspects is dead and the other one should serve the same way. Since they killed and wounded people, then they should be dead also. If this were in affect today, then people would better understand to not do a crime.

Catherine D

1/8/2015 08:32:55 am

The term "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" is true. I grew up with my parents telling me and my siblings that two wrongs don't make a right. And I think that is exactly what this statement is saying. Now don't get me wrong, I agree with people being punished for their wrongdoings but if I killed a man then I in turn would be killed, but, they are still taking a life innocent or not so in theory they would be killed and their killer killed so on and so forth. A better solution to this problem would be to arrest the person who killed a man and hold a private trial between the victims family and the killer. The family would be able to choose what they wanted the killer to face and that would be the end of it. If we can't learn to forgive others for what they have done to us our loved ones, then we woo all be in the ground in a few years.

Nick

1/8/2015 10:00:25 am

No, i think it is fair to be punished in this sort of way. Because if some one kills another person they are put into prison where they live virtually for free. then after they get out they always have the possibility to go right back to killing people. if they are dealt with with the eye for an eye philosophy, there is no chance for that person to go kill more people. on the less severe side of this, if someone is caught with a certain amount of marijuana they can be locked away for up to 80 years, for a plant. that is longer than some murderers are away for. If a human can be put in prison for that long for taking a plant out of the ground and another person can be put away for less time for putting someone in the ground, then the Judaical system is just a little corrupt no? i think that an eye for an eye would be a good experiment to see done. i think the out come would be harsh but would bring a certain peace to how things are handled. so yes i think that an eye for an eye would be a good thing to try out possible.

Rachel

1/8/2015 10:08:07 am

Yes, I agree with the statement an eye for an eye. If you hurt someone, for example: slap their leg then you should get slapped as well. The feeling of getting hurts will give someone pain so why do it in the first place? If you do want to slap someones leg they can slap your leg back. You would get to feel the pain that they received from the pain you gave them. It is only fair. Treat others the way you want to be treated. So if you hurt someone you should expect to get hurt back as well. Receiving equal punishments is the right way to handle situations. If someone hurt me I know I would want them to feel the same pain as I suffered through. So an eye for an eye is a equal punishment.

Tim Seibert

1/8/2015 10:30:00 am

I don't agree with the "eye for an eye" philosophy. It is, in its ideal form, just punishment. There are, however, circumstances in which it is not equal. Take the case of a serial killer, for instance. The killer can kill fifty people, but can only die once. That killer would receive the same punishment as someone who killed one person. If someone killed a family, would the killer's family receive the death penalty in return? If yes, it would be unfair because the killer's family is innocent. If no, the punishment would be unequal to the crime. In this sense, the "eye for an eye" philosophy will not bring just punishment equal to the crime.

John Tkacz

1/8/2015 11:51:41 am

I would have to agree with this statement. An eye for an eye is a uncivilized way to handle punishment, agreeing with an eye for an eye is like saying that two wrongs make a right. Would Americas justice system be based solely on eye for an eye, if so how would cases of theft, automotive violations, etc., be handled? Another problem with eye for an eye is, for example, if a man kills someone who was molesting his son should he be killed since he took a life? In my opinion eye for an eye would never work in a judicial system, each case is individual and can't be based on one rule.

John Rivera

1/8/2015 11:59:18 am

The eye for an eye is one of the best policies in my opinion, if applied correctly. It needs to only be done for serious enough number one. Murder is the most expected one. I believe that if you take a life you do not deserve to live. Its just plain not right. A famous serial killer called the "Nightstalker" got married in 1996 after killing several people back in L.A. You can not tell me that while the family of the victims suffer he gets to be married, enjoy conical visits, and read fan mail, that its was he deserves.

Mikayla Pudelka

1/8/2015 12:09:25 pm

If someone commits a crime then yes, I believe they should be punished. If a killer tortures and kills an innocent person then they should be punished but not like they killed the victim. If we punished criminals the same way they killed then we wouldn't be any better then they are. I believe that those criminals should sit and rot in jail. Staying in jail is a lot more painful then ending life early. No one likes to stay home all day, we would start to miss going out to eat, the mall, friends, all kinds of activities. Being in jail would make this criminal suffer from missing all the important things in life. Maybe the criminal would miss his daughter growing up. Staying in jail would be a lot worse than ended life. So yes, people should be punished for crimes, but not equally.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

To see or not to see...

Leave a Reply.

English 12

Archives

Categories