If we all thought "eye for an eye" was the right form of justice, would it lead to world blindess eventually?
I believe (and I could be wrong and am willing to stand corrected) that Ghandi said "Eye for an eye will lead to the world going blind". If it was him was he right?
Answers:
Yes it was Gandhi and yes he was right. One recent example of just how right he was are the deaths of six Italians in Germany in what is believed to be a family feud which originated from an egg-throwing incident at a festival.
Contrary to what one contributor says, execution does not achieve anything meaningful. I remember seeing a documentary about Timothy McVeigh which had the relatives of those who died in his bombing saying that they did not have the, "sense of closure", that they were expecting. Not all punishments will fit every crime - that is the nature of the world we live in; some crimes are so depraved that it is not possible for_any_punishment to equal them.
In the UK we now have a non-retributive judicial system. Yes it is imperfect and yes it fails. Both owe more to the failures of the Judiciary and the Legislature than to the principle itself. I for one would never want to see an eye for an eye.
Yep everyone is guilty of something.
Yes it would, women get away with crime and always get a light sentence. We need tougher sentencing on all women.
It could lead to destruction. All are guilty of wrong doing, and need forgiveness. Many feel they've been wronged, and want to get their revenge. But few are willing to forgive. It's the hardest thing to do. Punishment to fit the crime is a necessity. But so is education and a sense of responsibility in society.
Yes, it was Ghandi, and yes, he was right. We can *stop* wrong-doers without necessarily avenging ourselves on them.
You are right about the quote, but Ghandi wasn't right about everything, great man that he was.
Crimes demand penalties. The penalty should fit the crime, but many don't, not in the UK anyway. American justice, with it's sentences far longer than a lifetime, is more apt in cases of deliberate murder, but obviously these don't deter as America has one of the world's highest crime rates.
Executing a criminal, however, does not usually lead to his family then going out and killing a cop or a judge, so if we executed enough, then theoretically we could rid society of dangerous criminals.
The quote from the Old Testament book Exodus suggests that justice needs to contain an element of retribution - getting your own back, or revenge. This is an ancient Jewish custom.
In the US this is the thinking behind execution, that being the ultimate revenge for an unlawful killing. It's quite a nice, simple concept to understand. "He hit me, so I hit him back."
However, Jesus, in the New Testament tells us to "turn the other cheek." This means that we don't seek revenge, but we show our understanding of others and offer help to them. This is one of the crucial messages of Jesus, and one which even the most fundamental Christians often find hard to follow.
Ghandi was, in his way, pointing out the error of continuing to follow the ancient custom of revenge. Everyone of us has "injured" someone else in some way at some time. If all of those people were to get revenge on us, we certainly wouldn't like it.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
for sure well some people would need a lot of eyes, rather do unto others myself.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: