1. Post #1
    Gold Member
    <man>'s Avatar
    March 2006
    745 Posts
    "An eye for an eye" - an age old saying.

    But is this really the right path to take? Some people would consider it justice, but is it not revenge?
    I want to understand where people are coming from when they think an act or retribution is an acceptable form of justice. Is it morally correct to harm those who have harmed you? Should society punish those with the same methods as their crime? Like Sharia Law?

    Justice should give ALL people fairness, both the victim and the criminal should recieve closure.
    Does revenge truely give the victims closure?

    I think this article clears up many things. I honestly disagree with the concept of killing those who have killed, or even raping those who have raped. Do we not just cause more damage by commiting the same crime twice?
    http://www.differencebetween.net/lan...e-and-revenge/

  2. Post #2
    Gold Member
    7DeadlySyns's Avatar
    August 2008
    1,202 Posts
    That age old saying can be completed with "makes the whole world blind". Which sums up my opinion of it.

  3. Post #3
    Gold Member
    sgman91's Avatar
    July 2006
    4,140 Posts
    That age old saying can be completed with "makes the whole world blind". Which sums up my opinion of it.
    Only if half the world first takes an eye without provocation.

  4. Post #4
    Gold Member
    PvtCupcakes's Avatar
    May 2008
    10,900 Posts
    I think anyone is capable of committing murder. The people who say "I would never kill someone" are liars. Given the proper circumstances they would kill; perhaps they'll never encounter that, but they would do it if they did.

    So because of that, I don't see criminals as "monsters" or less human than anyone else. I think they should be rehabilitated, not executed.

  5. Post #5
    SinjinOmega's Avatar
    January 2010
    762 Posts
    What about half an eye for an eye?

  6. Post #6
    Gold Member
    Jim_Riley's Avatar
    February 2006
    1,542 Posts
    I think they should be rehabilitated, not executed.
    Some criminals just can't be rehabilitated and some just don't give a shit enough to be rehabilitated. What do we do with them now now that we've wasted resources trying to "rehabilitate" them?

    Everyone is capable of killing someone, yes, it's in our nature. We're naturally bred to be capable of that. However, the nature of a murder, for example, can also dictate the severity of a punishment and give a bit of insight into that criminal.

  7. Post #7
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    12,794 Posts
    I think anyone is capable of committing murder. The people who say "I would never kill someone" are liars. Given the proper circumstances they would kill; perhaps they'll never encounter that, but they would do it if they did.

    So because of that, I don't see criminals as "monsters" or less human than anyone else. I think they should be rehabilitated, not executed.
    You can't just rehabilitate them, but you can execute them. And I believe that rehabilitation doesn't necessarily even take much.

    But I agree, it's only a good thing if a criminal chooses not to be a criminal anymore or "is rehabilitated" as you like to put it, but there are some monsters out there.