To see or not to see...

1/7/2013

“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?

Amanda Donofrio

1/7/2013 10:31:55 am

It is argued whether or not Hammurabi's code is a valid arguement. My preference on the topic is that it is less than an ideal motto to live by. A lesson that has been taught through life has been two wrongs don't make a right. No one would ever learn from the mistakes made by society if all the offences were constantly repeated back to them. People would think they are getting a form of justice when the reality is they are causing further problems. They would be creating losses in other families so that more sorrow is present in the world. This practice would teach people that killing and cruel forms of punishment are okay. Instead of lowering the amount of violence in a country it would increase it substantially. No person would have a prime example to live off of. Living by Hammarabi's code would hurt the counties it was made to protect. Therefor an eye for an eye is not a quote to live by.

Camille Glasow

1/8/2013 09:27:25 am

I like how you brought up "No one would ever learn from the mistakes made by society if all the offences were constantly repeated back to them" because I agree "an eye for an eye" just causes more problems

Christina M

1/10/2013 11:01:29 am

Amanda, I agree with your argument. I think people who make mistakes will have to suffer and live with them for the rest of their lives. Sometimes that all the punishment it takes to get someone to change or learn right from wrong. I Also agree with your statement that two wrong don't make a right.

Victoria Marino

1/10/2013 11:40:42 am

You made many great points in here Amanda, but I agree most with what you said that two wrongs don't make a right, because it is completely true.

Haley Krivensky

1/7/2013 12:09:42 pm

I agree with this statement. I believe that if someone does something wrong to you it is not right to do something wrong back. Just like the saying, "two wrongs do not make a right". You will not benefit from "getting back" at someone for doing something wrongful to you. Things will only be worse for the both of you, hence "the whole world blind" part of this saying. This is just called being the bigger person in a situation. However, this does not stay true for extreme crimes. If someone brutally murders someone else, regardless the reason, they should have a similar punishment. Murderers do not deserve to be cut any slack when determining what discipline actions to take. In those extreme cases, one's punishment should be equal to one's crime.

Zach Antonio

1/7/2013 02:23:11 pm

Hey, Ley. So, you want to bring the old death penalty back to the CT? I agree that "two wrongs do not make a right". But have you heard the phrase "but three lefts do"? So there's that. I guess what I am trying to say is that taking the high road is the right thing to do. But that road is the more difficult path to travel down.

Amanda Donofrio

1/8/2013 03:38:34 am

I'm not entirely sure I agree with the death penalty. Although it may entail a terrible crime, repeating the act agianst the murderer is not justice in my eyes.

Brennen Diaz

1/8/2013 06:55:24 am

Interesting about the death penalty. I do agree that the punishment depends on how extreme the crime. My personally feelings about the death penalty, is that it should be left up to the State Governments and should not be an issue the Federal Government has to solve. Have a referendum for the people in the state who do and do not want the death penalty.

Kaitlyn Twombly

1/8/2013 07:06:28 am

I completely agree with everything you said. For minor offenses, I think people just need to decide to be the bigger person rather than "get back". On the other hand, extreme cases do deserve to be handled by "an eye for an eye", such as murder. Great point!

Zach Antonio

1/7/2013 02:11:51 pm

Life is unfair. The sooner everyone accepts that the better. Technically, if you followed the theory "an eye for an eye", it would be fair. But that is not life. It will not happen because it would not work. Let us say that I walk up to Mrs. Elbakry tomorrow and slap her as hard as I can across the face. Mrs. Elbakry should have the right to slap me as hard as she can across my face. But if she did her job would get reviewed, and she would be told that you should never physically assault a student. That slap of hers would not have been in self defense, but in revenge. So she would get in trouble. That is just sad. Even Batman, who believes in fairness and most of all, justice, does not follow this format. In the Dark Knight, the Joker kills Rachel, Bruce Wayne's only love. Does Batman (who is Bruce Wayne - Spoiler) kill this unjust man? No, because he is Batman and he does not use guns, only his hands as his tools of justice. No killing. Even if it is justified. If there is one man that we should all follow, it is Batman. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. And the only one who will be able to see is the lone crusader... Batman. Dananananananananananananananana Batman!

Katheryn Byrnes

1/8/2013 09:30:13 am

Zach, I agree with you and love your reference to Batman, but doesn't the Joker end up dead at the end anyway?

Nick Casablanca

1/8/2013 10:42:01 am

That's a good point you make Zach. Life is never going to be fair and something we will have to deal with. I also like how you use Batman as an example of justice and fairness as well as dealing with harsh reality of life.

Haley Krivensky

1/8/2013 10:42:09 am

Hey Zachariah, I agree that life is unfair and it is hard sometimes to not want to get revenge on someone. I know Mrs. Elbakry would definitely slap you harder anyway, so it's almost a good thing that she is not allowed to do that. But I guess the moral of the story is that we should all be more like Batman?

El Bakes

1/8/2013 11:17:54 am

Ha! Nice response Haley :)

Jackie Ortiz

1/10/2013 02:59:55 pm

I liked all the points you made zach! Especially that life isn't fair! We need to get out of this fairy tale that it is! Good job

andrew lynch

1/10/2013 03:58:02 pm

I agree, life is unfair, and when people learn that maybe are actions won’t be so clouded by what others view as "right"

Richard Katrenya

1/10/2013 04:42:01 pm

Zach, it is because of silly beliefs such as "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" that make your example of Mrs. Elbakry impossible. Fully knowing that you would have been hit back by Mrs. Elbakry, would you have even slapped her in the first place? An eye for an eye is not only completely justified, but it is crimes best deterrent. The reason it is not working is because people condone violence and let it slide, which in my opinion is blasphemy.

Sure, life isn't fair and shit happens, but when when somebody does something wrong, especially a murder, why would you ever want to let that slide just for the fact that "it might also be wrong to kill them in return". Maybe the killer should have thought of the consequences for his actions first before killing somebody. People do injustices knowing they can get away with them. Let's not give them a reason to think they can get away with them, and maybe enforce an eye for an eye a little bit better.

Brennen Diaz

1/8/2013 06:50:19 am

I do agree with this statement An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. I believe this means that the world would be blind not literally, but figuratively. There would be no existence of good and evil in a society where once a person commits a crime, the punishment is equal to his or her crime. There is no sense of justification that you are the better person. You might as well have no laws and just leave it to people to take their own revenge against the criminal. That is the whole point of the justice system, is the person(s) responsible for their crime are punished, but in a humane way, not a savage, uncivilized way.

Chris Faber

1/10/2013 11:01:30 am

I agree with your post, especially your last statement. Our justice system is suppose to be civil and an eye for an eye is simply not civil.

Kara DeVito link

1/10/2013 11:48:54 am

I like that you mentioned justification is worthless when you're trying to one-up someone. I totally agree.

Kaitlyn Twombly

1/8/2013 07:02:39 am

Initially when I read this statement, it made complete sense to me to live by "an eye for an eye". An eye for an eye does seem like the most fair and just way to punish people for their crimes. What better way to make a person think twice about doing something harmful? Chances are, they probably wouldn't want it done to themselves.. so they probably wouldn't do it at all if we put the theory in action. When I reread the statement, though, and took into consideration the vast amount of complications that would come with living by the "eye for an eye" theory, it doesn't seem so logical anymore. To live by "an eye for an eye" is simply much to hypocritical to actually be a successful method to run the world. How can you tell someone that something they did was wrong, and then proceed to commit the same act? Rules and laws are not meant to be bent, even if it seems logical to use reciprocation as a means of punishment. More turmoil would infiltrate this world rather than progress if we lived by "an eye for an eye". Therefore, yes I do agree with the statement that an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

Shayne Fitol

1/9/2013 06:35:09 am

You made a very good point about how it would be hypocritical to put this form of punishment into use. I agree with you about how we shouldn't bend laws simply for an act of revenge/punishment, even if this seems like the logical or easy thing to do.

Dan Mott

1/9/2013 07:35:13 am

Although I disagree with the quote I like where you come from. Good response and well written

Kristina Lacasse

1/10/2013 08:42:51 am

I had the same reactions to this quote. And I agree with the hypocrisy of the "eye for an eye" statement.

Camille Glasow

1/8/2013 09:24:51 am

I agree with this statement. Although it would be the more fair route to punish someone as equally severe to the crime they committed, this is not the right thing to do. When penalizing another individual whether it be a personal matter or under the law, I think the right thing to do is be the better person and punish them civilly because two wrongs don't make a right. I feel like we all want to get our revenge, especially if it's a dispute over a personal matter. But before you get back at someone, take a moment to consider what you're doing. If you're upset over what someone did to you, why would you go ahead and throw it right back at them? It is also the same with the way criminals are treated. They do something wrong, and get locked up. Many people believe they should be viciously murdered, especially in the case of a rapist or serial killer for example. While initially that seems fair and just, us brutally killing that individual is just as wrong. It's just a person killing another person. People should be less occupied on getting even, and take a step back and be the more benevolent and humane person.

Alyssa Ferreone

1/9/2013 01:51:43 pm

I like how you said it is just as wrong to kill rapists and serial killers.. killing is killing.

Meghan Giannettino

1/10/2013 11:23:06 am

I agree Camille It would be easier to say people should be punished equally for their crimes. But I feel it is uncivil and morally wrong to take a life.

Bridget Borowy

1/10/2013 12:27:20 pm

I agree with your statement. I don't think it is necessary to punish someone in the ways that they have wronged another. In the end, it doesn't solve the issue. People shouldn't focus on getting even like you said, but rather ways to prevent such occurrences and save others from the same fate.

Katheryn Byrnes

1/8/2013 09:30:35 am

I agree that this everyone should be punished for a crime they committee. But they are different ways of punishing a person. You don’t always have to take someone eye out if they cause you do be blind but there are other ways of punishing people. You can make them pay for your Medicare bills, Seeing Eye Dog, and anything else you will need, as you can’t see now. A person should be punished for what they do but there is no need to take their eye or arm or kill them.
When you do something bad that hurt another person you need to be punished. Punishing a person with the same crime that they committee doesn’t serve justice it serves vengeances. If everyone is out getting vengeances for a missing eye then the whole world is blind and no one gets anything done. Our world as we know it today might not be the world we know today because everyone is looking for the people that has done them wrong and they are fixing that wrong themselves.
That is why we have a jury so that they can decided the punishment on people they don’t know, which means no biasness to the wrongdoer. They jury is the people who choices the punishment for the crime that they did. The person will rightfully serve their punishment for what they did and they world will not be blind and why if someone causes you to go blind they should not have to suffer your same fate.

Nick Casablanca

1/8/2013 10:50:23 am

I agree completely with this saying. In my opinion, it draws the line between what is right and what is easy. When someone does something hurtful against us, our anger gets the best of us and what seems like a good idea never is. It is also very easy to get lost in the anger you have and it seems easier to just get your revenge on who ever did the hurtful deed to you. It is so much harder to let that anger go and live with what has happened to you, however it is the right thing to do. For example, if we lived in a world where everyone gets revenge on someone else everyday, we would live in total madness and chaos (not a fun scenario). So in summary, no matter how good and idea seems when your angry and wanting revenge, it will never be a good idea and we should strive to do the right thing no matter the circumstance.

Dan Mott

1/9/2013 06:18:25 am

This statement is by far, completely false, and does not even begin to explain how proper justice should be served in modern day society. There is no true “reprimanding” of crimes done. So they go to person, and…. That’s it?! It isn’t right that they get to live peacefully in a jail cell while their victim or victims are dead or hurt and their families grieving. The death penalty, I am in all favor for, 100%. However, it needs to actually be used. Texas seems to be the only state who knows how to use it. You can’t just have people sentenced to death row and sit there for 20 years and then murdered, kill them sooner. That kills two birds with one stones. Reason being is that, one you get eye for an eye in let’s say crimes such as murder or rape and two, you’re clearing up the jail and legal system for faster processing criminals and more and more justice is served.
“Eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind,” isn’t true because seeking revenge on an individual is biological predisposed in every human. I don’t care if you are a holy saint or priest, everyone wants revenge on someone who has effected them personally. Even on a small scale. Say Danielle is wearing her “dope” pants and I spill paint on them. She will get mad and then in return she will want karma to come around and get me. She will always have that instinct to see me “hurt” in some way emotionally.
In addition, the whole world won’t go “blind” per say, because of multiple reasons. The population of the world is in the billions, several billion people exist. Not all of them are criminals and the birth rate as a whole is so rapid that one person lost isn’t a big deal. They are a murderer, rapist, scandal, thief, or hoodlum, so it doesn’t matter that there off this earth. It makes it a better place.
An eye for an eye is a proper form of justice. Some say its inhumane or not morally correct. Ok. Well is murdering a family, raping a college student, or beating up and old lady morally correct? No not at all. People need to stop standing up for criminals. Once you commit your crime, I believe your rights as an American should be wiped clean. No lawyers, no “remaining silent.” This tactics just allow for hardened criminals to get away with stuff easier. If you murder someone, you should be executed by the electric chair. No lethal injection and this peaceful crap. Why should the criminal die peacefully when their victim was injured or murdered in gruesome ways? Why should the families have to live knowing that man/woman who hurt their family is ALIVE, and living somewhat peacefully.
The laws are written, so eye for an eye doesn’t happen. Change the laws around. Zach’s example of hitting Mrs. Elbakry in the face is well… inane. If you hit her in the face she should have every right to hit back. Then he mentioned about her losing her job. Well if the laws were written differently she wouldn’t have to worry about that. Earlier in writing I was mainly speaking of big, felony crimes. However, small petty crimes should be eye for an eye punishment as well. For example, vandalism. If they vandals are caught, their place of residence should be spray painted with vulgarity and gang signs. They should have thought about that before they defaced public property. Not to mention, eye for an eye will set a much better and more intimidating example for criminals. They would be less likely to go rob a bank or kill someone if they knew that in return they would be gruesomely murdered or in the bank scenario, money taken from the family.
The punishment needs to be equal to the crime. How just works today is not cutting it. If you honestly think the justice system isn’t corrupt and is doing well for society, you live in a dark hole in the arctic. In 2012 alone, Chicago and NYC EACH had 500 murders a piece. That is 1,000 lives lost. Don’t get me wrong police do well for society and without them the world would definitely not be in existence, but laws and rules need to be changed.
Then you have the criminals who are sentenced to prison, and pretend to have learned their lesson and then get freed, soon after going back to committing the crimes. If eye for an eye was put into place they may not have gone and done that. Everyone needs to be punished for the crimes they commit. Sitting in a jail cell, eating, writing, drawing, talking does not suffice. Something drastic needs to be done. I’m not talking like Middle East or North Korean tactics, but something more severe than what we have now. Actually, the Middle East is a good point to touch upon. After 9/11, America went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan. At first we were aggressive, and then backed off and helped rebuild their government and the economy. What the hell? Did Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein help ours?... N

El Bakes

1/9/2013 07:23:10 am

Dan, I love fact that you are so passionate about this subject that the website cut you off. The point you made about criminals getting out for "good behavior" only to return to their criminal lifestyle has been on my mind ever since that crazy man in NY set his house on fire and murdered the firefighters responding to it. SICK. Absolutely sick. His suicide note said something to this effect: "Doing what I do best, killing people." Seriously? And they let him out? What has happened to our justice system? Not to mention to the two animals from the Cheshire home invasion. How long will they hang out on CT's dime appealing their sentences for a crime they undoubtedly committed? Okay, I'm done joining your rant. That is all.

Shayne Fitol

1/9/2013 08:46:49 am

I agree with the death penalty and that people should be able to, say, hit someone back. But if you start using an eye for an eye or the death penalty in every possible scenario, then the only thing happening is more people dying. Situational use of it is fine, and would be better than what we currently have. And yeah everyone wants revenge. That doesn't make it ok to go out and get it. Yes there are a lot of people on earth. That doesn't mean we should go out and kill some to help reduce that number. I would be fine with an eye for an eye being used to get rid of the worst criminals. Not all of them, simply the absolute worst. Terrorists. Serial killers. Serial rapists. Etc. If you start taking away people's rights, so many more innocent will be wrongfully punished. That's another reason why you can't always use eye for eye. You have to be 100% sure they did it to even consider it. And if killing is immoral, why should we always be allowed to do it back? It has to be used on a case by case basis, which then creates grey areas and the question of "why then and not now?" which would be a mess. Again I agree with a large part of what you are saying from a theoretical standpoint. What we are doing now doesn't always work. Death penalty should be used and should be used more efficiently. And an eye for an eye is sometimes a good idea.
But, one question: have you ever seen law abiding citizen?

Danielle O

1/9/2013 12:02:35 pm

LOL. My dope pants, I'm glad you used me in there. I also thought that overall you had very strong points and a convincing argument. Good job, Dan Mott.

Kyle Blake

1/10/2013 06:02:38 am

Really Dan Mott. two parts to your post. Your post makes very vlid points throughout the whole section though. Awesome job.

Dan Mott, PART 2

1/9/2013 08:07:46 am

Did Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein help ours?... NO! What America should have done, and of course they didn’t because box of rocks President Bush was in charge, we should have stayed on the aggressive path and wiped them off the path. To save lives on our part and take a major dent out of world terrorism, the USA should have launched a couple nuclear bombs on the Middle East. Now you just read that and was like “OHHHH, what about the innocent people.” Not to be offensive, but there are not many people in the Middle East, not connected in some way, shape or form to a terrorist or terror cells. The people got to live peacefully, while America mourned the loss of thousands of lives and then thousands of more armed men and women.
The phrase "an eye for an eye" represents what many people view as a harsh sense of justice based on revenge. But, the entire code is much more complex than that one phrase. The code distinguishes among punishments for wealthy or noble persons, lower-class persons or commoners, and slaves. It reflects upon all walks of life and stands for justice.
Freedom in America is one of a kind and that is what makes it so great. However, when it comes to crime and punishment a more severe and harsh tactic needs to be taken. The current ones are obviously not working. Justice cannot always be served peacefully. People still want to think we live in a great world. Well guess what we don’t. Freaking wake up and smell the damn coffee. People are dying every second and people just lay back and watch it happen. Do something productive with life. You have all these prestigious lawyers, law enforcement officials, politicians, and judges who sit on their asses and don’t do any change. There is no way you can sit there and tell me for instance the Cheshire home invasion perpetrators don’t deserve the death penalty or Ted Bundy didn’t deserve it.
Revenge needs to be sought out for justice to be completely served and give some closure to the families and the grieving. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” That wholeheartedly backs up my fight for an “eye to an eye” justice system. Anywhere in the country, someone can commit a crime and then if they are not properly served, other criminals all around the country will see that as free will to commit more crimes. Being affirmative and aggressive from the beginning will only lead to better results in the end.

Shayne Fitol

1/9/2013 08:18:16 am

In theory, the concept of "an eye for an eye" seems like the best and most logical form of punishment. If you steal something from me, why should I be the only person who loses something in this situation? Shouldn't I get something back?
But a good theory doesn't always translate well into the real world. In this case, you have the whole "two wrongs don't make right" concept and then the "be the bigger man" ideal, both of which are morally sound arguments to make. Ideally, if someone punches me, I should "be the bigger man" and let it go. But this is the reason that an eye for an eye is even being debated in the first place: believing that acting as a pacifist is the right thing to do and actually abiding by it are two entirely different things. The first is easy while the latter is difficult. Fighting back is a natural human reaction. You aren't only defending yourself, but also your pride. If you simply allow someone to hit you, you look weak in the eyes of everyone else. Honestly, if someone hits me, they are going to get hit back. In this case, an eye for an eye seems like a reasonable method of punishment.
But that is only a minor issue being dealt with. On an issue of major importance, an eye for an eye is not plausible. Say someone robs a bank. What is the bank going to do, rob him back? If a guy beats a girl, is some other person going to go and brutally attack the guy who did it? Then that third person now has that on his conscience. It is just not a realistic form of punishment, as it does nothing except create a cycle of crime and violence. Imagine if it was used on an international level. The planet would be engulfed in a nonstop world war.
Every system of punishment is going to be flawed. An eye for an eye pretty much does leave the whole world blind. If not blind, then at least damaged or hurt. The system America uses has its obvious issues that people always complain about. The method used back in the days of the Salem witch trials, well that was just dumb. But whatever flaws a system may have, the punishment should fit the crime committed. And doing back whatever someone does to you is just not helpful. It may make you feel better for a while, but you won't get anything substantial out of it. If the system America has fails, sure, you may feel like the only one who loses. But if an eye for an eye fails and you "take the eye" of the wrong person, you will feel a whole lots worse than if they simply put the wrong person in jail.

Tim Osborn

1/10/2013 02:23:21 am

You make good points, I wouldn't want to be the person to hit you. Your black belt would deffonetly show through haha.

Meredith Folsom

1/10/2013 07:59:16 am

Shayne, you make some great points. An appropriate punishment is necessary rather than personally getting revenge.

Danielle O

1/9/2013 12:01:05 pm

Honestly, I'm not sure I have a firm opinion on the quote "an eye for an eye. " I can understand both sides of the story. On one hand, I do not always believe that killing someone because they killed one other person is justified. Killing one person doesn't make them a bad person depending on the circumstances. But I also believe that sometimes an eye for an eye makes sense. Lets say that a man has committed multiple murders, he deserves to be put to death because his actions were unnecessary. Overall I feel as though it is difficult to pick a side because there's grey areas to each side. But I do lean more towards an eye for an eye. For example, when Mrs. Petit and her daughters were killed, I took it personally because I knew her so I believe that the man behind that should be put to death as soon as possible. He didn't just kill one person, he killed 3, so in that case I believe that an eye for eye is absolutely justified.

Alyssa Ferreone

1/9/2013 01:49:05 pm

I do not think that an eye for an eye is the most productive system for a society. I do think, however, that people need to be punished for their bad actions but not necessarily in the same way they hurt someone else. If someone killed my sister, I wouldn't go and kill their sister because odds are she had nothing to do with it. Although it is not in human nature to be forgiving, sometimes you need to just think What Would Jesus Do? and let it go. "You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge…but love your neighbor…" -(Leviticus 19:18) This is an example of how the bible tells us to not follow the eye for an eye thing and not seek revenge for every little thing but to forgive our enemies. The bible also says that we are to obey the laws of our country and if that means murder equals life in prison, then that is the appropriate punishment. Not more murders. I think an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

Christina Buswell

1/10/2013 07:43:13 am

Alyssa, I'd have to agree that I don't think an eye for an eye is the most productive way to run society.

Amber Murray

1/10/2013 11:05:30 pm

I like the bible quote!

Jess Fedak

1/11/2013 12:25:50 am

I agree completely! And I love that you quoted the bible!

Tim Osborn

1/10/2013 02:12:12 am

Although it may sound kind of gruesome yes I do believe that punishments should be the same or equal in severity. Take the recent shooting as an example. That one man killed so many children and grown ups for no reason. He literally had no reason to do what he did. It's not like there is a possibility that he did not commit the crime. He should be facing the death penalty without a doubt. Then there are people who murder one person and get off of a life sentence for good behavior. That is horrible imagine the family who lost their loved one. They lost that one person, maybe for no reason and the perpetrator gets off easy. Our justice system needs to be adjusted to give criminals what they deserve.

Alex Mardis

1/10/2013 01:01:05 pm

I agree Tim. We are so cought up with doing what is politically correct that we forget that the whole point is to give the criminal what he or she deserves.

andrew lynch

1/10/2013 04:00:22 pm

I agree, the punishments should be equal to the action, but the only real way to punishment for the recent shooting would by stoning him to death.

Jackie Ortiz

1/10/2013 02:27:36 am

Truthfully, I have no problem with a person receiving the same punishment as the crime they committed. To me some crimes are much more worse than others therefore it is only fair. For example if a person kills, why do they get to live when their victim didn't have the choice? In situations like that I have no issue with proper and equal punishment. I also agree with the death penalty. These individuals that feel they have the right to commit a murder and crime deserve to receive equal if not harsher punishment. But the nicer human in me, does feel as if two wrongs do not make a right. But I also know if I were to be in a situation that a loved one of mine was killed, raped or anything of the sort I would want the same punishment and to them to feel the same pain my loved one felt and the pain that I'm feeling. In certain circumstances I have no remorse. Every action has a reaction. You choose to commit a crime then you choose to get punished. It is as simple as that.

Steve Mahoney

1/10/2013 10:22:44 am

I definitely agree with your "two wrongs don't make a right." But...three rights do make a left, and one wrong should not be corrected with another. Overall you had some great points on this topic.

Lauren Barry

1/10/2013 12:05:53 pm

Jackie, I promise you I did not read this before I wrote my answer! The two of us certainly have the same beliefs, our responses were almost identical, how strange!

kyle blake

1/10/2013 06:00:00 am

I agree with this statement. Someone who commits a crime, will commit it because they are not scared of the consequences. For major crimes, the United States gives people a valid amount of food, and a place to sleep. There are many cases where homeless people commit a terrible crime so they will be able to have a place to stay and food to eat. The United States does not give harsh enough consequences. People who are in and out of jail are not affected because the first time they do and see that it is not that bad, they have more of a reward risking their record for the temporary fulfillment. All crimes are temporary fulfillment. THis means that when they get the urge to commit a crime, it will satisfy their needs for a very short period of time, then they will have to commit the crime again. If the United States went by this saying, crime rate would decrease. If someone wanted to kill another person and they knew the consequence would be their own death, they would second guess actually committing the crime. If someone robbed a store and knew that after they are caught, their house would be robbed, the temporary fulfillment would not be worth it. THis is the right thing to do. If someone wants to hurt someone else, then they should be hurt.It is not right that people get away with murder by just being put into a cell and sit there for free.

Christina Buswell

1/10/2013 07:41:28 am

I do and I don't believe in the quote "an eye for an eye". I don't believe that anyone has the right to, for example claim another persons life. The death pentalty is an example of this. I don't believe that anyone should have the power to decide that someone should die. I think it's kind of hypocritical actually, to say that killing is wrong therefore we're going to kill you. However, I have never been put in a situation where, for example, I have lost a loved one due to a murder, therefore I have no idea how I would react. I can say now that I think the quote "an eye for an eye" is the wrong approach. However, if I was ever put in that type of situation I would want the criminal to pay for the crime that was committed. I don't think anyone can really form a concrete opinion on this ideology unless they have experienced first-hand something horrific; or someone has taken something sacred to them. in conclusion, I would say I don't know if I agree with the quote or don't agree with the quote, because I have never had that first-hand experience.

Robert Costigan

1/10/2013 07:51:57 am

I've been reading a lot of these blogs and quite to my surprise there are many different opinions.I think we can also all agree that it is also the most argumentative response blog any of us have ever seen. This is yet again another very touchy topic due to the fact that it deals with punishment and even death. It's one of those topics that you can take a lot of facts about one side and from the other to form your own opinion. But if I had to choose one side to go with, I would have to go against the statement "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Now the reason I say this is because it's true; without punishment, there is no order in this world, which is what we as humans understand. There are a lot of evil things that happen to people every day, things so evil that the victims wish nothing but the worst for that person. Now I want you to think about this for a second:
Take someone you love. It can be your mom, dad, brother, sister, boyfriend, girlfriend, grandparent, or best friend. I'll even let you think of a pet. Imagine a person walks up to that person or pet you love, that did nothing wrong to that person, that loved you so much and did everything they possibly could do for you with a smile on their face asking nothing in return. Now I want you to imagine the worst possible thing that person can do to your loved one. That's why I chose to go with this side of the argument.

Meredith Folsom

1/10/2013 07:56:16 am

If everyone followed the rule “ An eye for an eye” there would always be revenge, just like in Hamlet. When Hamlet killed Polonious, Laertes felt that Hamelt deserved to die, respecting the “an eye for an eye” idea. However, that only caused more mayhem throughout the end of the play. Although Laertes wanted revenge it caused others to die as well. How could anyone learn from his or her mistakes if the punishment is equal to the act, in Hamlet’s case: death. If people followed that motto then there wouldn’t be forgiveness. People wouldn’t know how to just accept that maybe someone did something wrong but it’s not right to reciprocate it. Treat people the way you want to be treated, just because someone is mean to you doesn’t mean it is justified to be as equally mean to him or her. Someone has to be the bigger person and get over it and not seek some sort of revenge. There doesn’t always have to be a reaction to an action. If Hamlet knew that, then the play wouldn’t be much of a tragedy, yes his father would have died, but not him and his mother and Cladius and Laertes. There should always be consequence for bad behavior but I don’t think equal punishment is necessary.

Katie Mitchell

1/10/2013 12:18:10 pm

I agree with you. I like how you related it to Hamlet.

Kristina Lacasse

1/10/2013 08:32:27 am

I do believe that an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. It is such a hypocritical statement. By saying something is wrong, it doesn’t make sense to do the same act. If the law worked this way, it would lead to a chain reaction literally “blinding the whole world”

Some people may say that simple things can be resolved by this mode. But then people could question where does the line draw? Yes, a simple punch can cause a punch back but when it comes to murder or rape. It leads to many grey areas. If someone rapes someone else, to punish them by “the eye for an eye” doesn’t make sense. Despite this, serious criminal should not be cut slack. Serious crimes should be handled with equal, but not the same punishment.

Michaela Ryan

1/10/2013 12:44:01 pm

It's a good point that some punishments can't be equal, because who wants to attack someone who beats their family, or rape a rapist? some of our laws fit the crime, and some need to be reevaluated.

Steve Mahoney

1/10/2013 10:20:26 am

An eye for an eye...in theory it sounds good but there's no way it would ever work. Sure back in ancient times, maybe, but zero chance in present times. It is not practical enough to even try to put into use. A better idea is to bring back the stockades. Publicly humiliate criminals then throw them in jail. I'm just kidding, that wouldn't do anything. In fact, it might encourage criminals because they may commit crimes just to get their fifteen minutes of fame. The most realistic solution to punishing criminals is probably just to leave the system how it is. Sure there are flaws but overall it does a decent job. I'd much rather have a system that does its job decently, than have a new one that does it poorly. Right now, our system is okay. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Trevor Haigh

1/11/2013 03:14:00 am

I agree with you completely. It may have been possible back then, but it just doesn't work in our society. I like your idea of public humiliation. it might help to prevent future crimes more than our current system.

Meghan Giannettino

1/10/2013 11:19:15 am

Yes I agree with that statement. Just because someone pokes you in the eye doesn't mean you poke them back. It all goes back to what we discussed in class the other day about revenge. Like in Hamlet; Hamlet was so raped up in trying to get Claudius back from killing his father he destroyed everyone he loved in it. His mother, Ophelia and his friends all lost. He went blind with vengeance. To the other question should one's punishment be equal to one’s crime? I want to say no, because no one should take a life. But if the crime is savory like a genocide killing. Then the case is yes! But only on cases as bad as that. Other then massive murdering we should not kill each other.

Christina M

1/10/2013 11:19:36 am

When I read the quote "an eye for an eye" I instantly think of criminals and sinners. Therefore, I strongly disagree with the quote. I feel that people who make mistakes no matter how bad the situation is that he/she should be punished in a way where he/she can come to a realization that what he/she did was wrong. If people's punishments were the same as the mistake they made how would they ever learn right from wrong? This quote is saying that it is ok to break the law or commit a crime because someone else did it. This is why people who commit crimes go to jail. If someone robs a house it would not make sense to punish that person by robbing their house. I think that if people went by the this quote there would be a never ending cycle of violence and crime. This quote influences people to get revenge on people which is never a good way to handle a situation. This quote sends out the wrong message to society.

Kara DeVito link

1/10/2013 11:46:06 am

When I hear this quote, "An eye for an eye..", I honestly think of what the Bible says about it, like Alyssa. "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the cheek, turn to him the other also." Matthew 5:38,39. It's hard to do in this world, but the Bible says to be humble and love your enemies. I personally don't like confrontation, and in many scenarios, it doesn't benefit anyone anyways. As far as one's punishment, I don't believe people should face the same punishment as the crime or evil act they committed. I do believe they should be punished at equal severity. But if a person were to kill all my friend, they certainly deserve to be punished for it. But that doesn't mean someone has to rape them. Overall, I agree with this statement. Revenge teaches us nothing.

Lauren Barry

1/10/2013 12:04:36 pm

I always have and always will agree with this statement. The punishment for one’s crime should absolutely be equal to the crime they have committed. As some people have already mentioned, people who commit crimes are usually not worried about what the consequences may be. Seeing as though they have already gone against the laws that are there for protection, why should we protect them anymore? I am certainly in favor if the death penalty simply because I truly believe you deserve what you hand out. It seems so easy for people to be against the death penalty or any type of punishment equal to the crime, but take the time to put yourself in the situation. Imagine you lost an immediate family member or a best friend to a murderer. Most people would want justice. How can we serve justice if we let the man or woman who took our loved one’s life basically be provided with a shelter, food, and clothing? Yes, I would think that jail would ever be a nice place to be, but if someone who killed someone so close to you was being catered to, how is that justice to you, or your loved one? All in all I think that reality is a vicious cycle, even when governments do not take equal actions against a criminal, karma eventually will ultimately giving a criminal a punishment equal to his crime.

Victoria Marino

1/10/2013 12:10:25 pm

I believe that the statement “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind” is completely true. When it comes to punishing criminals, I believe that officials have a very hard time thinking of a correct punishment to give these people for the crimes they commit. They of course want to give them what they deserve but they also want to be fair and have them learn from their mistakes. Many people do believe in the death penalty, but when trying to punish someone and tell them it is wrong to kill someone, it doesn’t make sense to in return kill them for killing others. With that being said, people don’t have to be punished in the same way they did wrong in order for them to learn their lesson and learn what is wrong. There are many other ways for people to be punished. Let’s talk about a murderer who has killed someone. When it comes to trial, they are given life in prison. No one wants to spend their life behind bars so they are still being punished but without taking the life of another human being and having two people do wrong. As many people have already said “two wrongs don’t make a right” which in my eyes is also true. You can teach someone what is right and wrong without punishing them the way they have hurt others. Messages can be sent many other ways. Punishments should be tougher depending on the crimes, but there is no reason for the punishment to be as severe as the crimes committed.

Ally Caple

1/10/2013 04:25:42 pm

I like what you said about "messages can be sent in other ways." I definitely agree with this also- it doesn't make since for us to say that killing people is wrong and then go ahead and sentence them with the death penalty.

Katie Mitchell

1/10/2013 12:17:26 pm

I agree with this statement. Although "an eye for an eye" seems like the only fair and justified thing to do, it doesn't solve anything. This quote is all about revenge. For example, if a country bombs you, you bomb them back. If someone takes your eye, you take theirs. But then what? You get caught up in getting back at that person that hurt you and consumed by hatred, that you never get a way out. You can no longer see a way to forgive or come to an agreement. You are left in a constant circle, there is no way forward, and no way to move on from it. Therefore, "leaving the whole world blind".

Kaitlyn

1/10/2013 05:17:14 pm

I agree with what you said about how it only leads to people trying to get revenge. I think most things can be resolved much more peacefully, if people try instead of getting caught up in getting back at someone.

Bridget Borowy

1/10/2013 12:24:44 pm

This is yet another sticky situation to discuss. One of the most awful things that a person could ever do to me, and the one thing that really angers me is when people intentionally and knowingly do something to harm another. It doesn't have to be as extreme as perhaps murdering someone, but even just the little things, like making fun of someone. So, do I agree with the statement "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"? Yes, I do agree. I believe that it is very necessary to bring people to realize their wrong doings, and punishment is usually one's first response. However, I don't believe that it is necessary to do this in such a way as "an eye for an eye". It is important to hold on to the capacity to forgive, to move forward. Seeking revenge robs one of their insight and ability to forgive. It requires too much planning and time to dwell in anger. It is also true that revenge is a vicious cycle. When it comes down to it, I don't believe it is ever necessary to intentionally hurt someone. I know that I would never intentionally do something to cause harm to another. On the larger scale, I do not believe that any person on this earth has the right or the say in taking someone's life. Life is short and precious, and no one should be robbed of it because no one has the right to punish another in such a way. Of course there are your extremes of evil, such as Hitler. He was a worldly concern and an evil man. I would not be offended if someone were to want to get rid of him, however I still stand by my morals of what I stated above.

Michaela Ryan

1/10/2013 12:37:51 pm

How can one judge every crime and punishment? It's impossible. There are a few acts that should be "an eye for an eye" and many that shouldn't. Like others have said, the crime should fit the punishment. In most cases, it's best to "be the bigger man" and walk away. You don't have to let anything affect you. If someone does something wrong, it's their problem. But sometimes punishment is necessary to teach a lesson. Although it may be harder, it disciplines those who need it. We can't let thieves walk around because we're "being the better person" and letting them go unpunished. They must return or compensate for what they stole in full... an eye for an eye.

Alex Mardis

1/10/2013 12:58:52 pm

While today's laws are clearly more efficient and more humane than an eye for an eye, I have to admit I would like to see this statement put into action (just for kicks). To start off, someone said that this form of law wouldnt decrease the crime rate, but i think the opposite could be said. If someone were to steal a car, i think it would be much funnier to have them walk outside the next day only to see that their car was stolen by the government than send them to jail for a year. The same could be said for any other crime. if someone were to be arrested for rape I'd rather have them get raped by a big scary man named Hank than simply send them to jail. America is always trying to do the right thing or the humane thing, which leads to criminals taking advantage of the system. If your life is crazy enough to murder/rob/rape etc someone, than jail really isnt that bad of a punishment. Three meals a day with tv and a roof over your head is probably an upgrade for whatever life the person was living before. It would be much more effective the have the same crime commited on you. People always say treat others the way you want to be treated. So if you are going to commit a crime why not have the same crime commited on you?

Kaitlyn

1/10/2013 02:38:10 pm

I agree with this quote. An eye for an eye means whatever crime is committed should be punished the same way. I think that doing this would only make people want to take revenge for what had happened. That would only continue the harm done to both people involved. A punishment fitting a crime seems fair in theory, but I don’t think it would work. Some things can’t easily be done this way. For example, currently in America, most murders are not punished by death. Someone’s actions could even be justified by something like self defense. If someone did something that harmed someone else, but there was some way of justifying it, an equal punishment would be wrong. For example the person who killed someone in self defense would be killed too if that rule was followed. Using a system that considers the circumstances is much fairer.

Andrew Lynch

1/10/2013 03:55:26 pm

Crime happens on a regular basis. Every day, a store gets robbed, or someone gets attacked. In America, these criminals go to prison where they eat for free, sleep, and live out their time in relaxation. These criminals could have committed murder, and they go to prison where their food and shelter are paid for by the citizens of the US though tax dollars. Realistically, this is not really a punishment for a rapist or a murder. In the countries where people fallow the eye for an eye rule, there are actually much less crime then in the US. This is because the people fear the punishments, where as in America the punishments are not as bad. Finally, the only real way to punish a criminal is by making them suffer the same as their victims. It only makes sense that if you remove someone’s arm, then the same should happen to you, or if you steal someone’s item, then you have to pay for it, and more. By making criminals suffer the same as their victims, it makes them less interested in commenting crimes. It is also definitely not barbaric, its justice.

Ally Caple

1/10/2013 04:22:21 pm

Personally, I've always been one to enjoy everything about revenge, but my mindset has changed since I've become older. I still believe in the whole "treat others the way you want to be treated" gold rule stuff they started teaching us in elementary school, but it only works to some degree. "An eye for an eye" can't be justified in every situation or all the time. It depends on the circumstances and how major the issue is. But as for the second part, "leaves the whole world blind," when put together with the first part, I agree completely. When you're out to get someone back for their wrongdoing, you become so full of hatred that you become, for lack of a better term, blinded. When people become filled with hate, their minds focus on all negative things. It's one thing to discuss this on a personal one-on-one level, like something on a teen drama high school level, but when it comes to the entire nation or world, it's not a place we want to live in. From personal experience I know that when you seek hardcore revenge for someone for something they did wrong, you become just has bad as they are. You have now stooped down to their level. And I don't know about you, but that's not the type of person I want to be and it shouldn't be the people are living.

Richard Katrenya

1/10/2013 04:34:00 pm

It is easy for people as sheltered as us to say as something as naive as a statement like this. We do not know how it feels to have our father murdered by our Uncle. We do not know how it feels to have a loved one murdered, being stolen from, or any wrong done to us in general. We don't know how it feels, so it is easy for us to say that equal punishment is wrong. Put yourself in someone else's shoes for a moment, and lets see if you still think that way.

Just for the time being, I am going to use a hypothetical scenario, but the same applies to anything. Imagine that you were in college and you haven't seen your father in 3 months. Because of college, you haven't spoken to him, you missed his 50th birthday party, and you missed fathers day. Imagine that one morning, you get a call from your mother saying that your father was shot and killed by a store robber trying to protect the owner of the store. How would you feel? I will tell you how I feel; I would feel angry, mortified. This man didn't even know my father, yet he shot him in cold blood to satisfy his greed for a couple mere pieces of paper.

I would want revenge, I would want justice to be served. I wouldn't want him to be set free just for the reason that "2 wrongs don't make a right".

This world needs equal punishment, it would be the worlds most effective deterrent. In the Cheshire Home Invasion for example, these two men raped, beat, and burned alive 3 innocent women. Would they still have done the same knowing that if they were caught, the same thing would happen to them?

Now, 6 years later, I presume that they have already been tried and put to death for their crimes, but you can't say that they don't deserve to be burned alive and beaten. You can't say that they don't deserve to die just like the way he killed 3 innocent women.

Another touchy subject for many of us, September 11th. Osama bin Laden flew 2 jet loaded with passengers into the twin towers in New York City. All the details aside, I'm cutting to the point here. The people who support this saying "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind", how could you even REMOTELY say that this man didn't deserve to die? If Seal Team 6 didn't kill Bin Laden, what would America have done to him? Would they have put him on trial? Would they actually give this man a fair trial that would have taken another 10 years before he was actually put to death? He wouldn't have deserved it anyway. If I had it my way, that man would have been forced to inhale smoke and die from smoke inhalation.

The reason the death penalty takes forever is because of the nonsense beliefs like this that people have. If more people supported the belief "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth", the world would be much better off, especially safer.

Don't idolize these killers on the news, don't even let the world know their name; that is why they do what they do afterall, for fame. If these killers are treated like they treated their victims, as well as not even be known by the world, hell I'm pretty sure that the cons would outweigh the pros.

All in all, I completely disagree with the statement "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind". The people that do do horrible acts to INNOCENT people deserve what they did on themselves by 10 fold. People who condone murderers just because they think that killing is wrong, why don't you talk to the victims, see how they feel.

Amber Murray

1/10/2013 11:04:07 pm

There are different situations where i think an eye for an eye would be very suitable. But that phrase isn't about revenge, its about compensating the victim and with making peace between victim and offender. I don't believe that if someone steals they should have their hand cut off, but if someone was to murder someone else then they really shouldn't be living. They took ones life so it wouldn't be wrong if they lost their life. If something was accidental but that person gets blamed then it wouldn't be fair if they punishment was an eye for an eye. An eye for an eye is all about fairness. Any kind of punishment should be fair for what that person has done. The punishment shouldn't be outrageous if the crime committed was minuscule. I feel as though this expression could be take too far in some situations. Some people might take it more literal then others, which could lead to bad things.

Jess Fedak

1/11/2013 12:24:22 am

I completely agree with the statement "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." I feel very strongly that the death penalty is wrong. You should not punish a murderer with death. Killing is killing no matter what. It does not solve anything or show someone they did something wrong by doing the same to them. By punishing a person with the same crime they committed you are just as bad as them. Two wrongs do not make a right. Society will suffer if we live by the "an eye for an eye" philosophy. Nobody deserves to die no matter what crime they committed. You must not seek revenge but you can seek a fair punishment. Committing the same crime as the criminal does not show others that it's wrong and an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind.

Trevor Haigh

1/11/2013 03:09:33 am

An eye for an eye worked for a little while as history showed us. Logistically speaking, though, how would this work In today's society? if you're punishing someone with an equal punishment as their crime, do you rape a rapist as their punishment. When you think about it, an eye for an eye just doesn't make sense. In theory it seems like an awesome idea with the whole treat others how you want to be treated. So to answer the question, no, an eye for an eye does not work in our society. managing each crime committed would require much more resources than what we use today. Also, it becomes hypocritical to punish someone with what you had already determined to be illegal.

Comments are closed.

To see or not to see...

English 12 Honors

Archives

Categories