Retribution When someone takes a life, the balance of justice is disturbed. Only
the taking of the murderer's life restores the balance and allows
society to show convincingly that murder is an intolerable crime which
will be punished in kind.
Retribution has its basis in religious values, which have historically
maintained that it is proper to take an "eye for an eye" and a life
for a life.
Although the victim and the victim's family cannot be restored to the
status which preceded the murder, at least an execution brings closure
to the murderer's crime (and closure to the ordeal for the victim's
family) and ensures that the murderer will create no more victims.
For the most cruel and heinous crimes, the ones for which the death
penalty is applied, offenders deserve the worst punishment under our
system of law, and that is the death penalty. Any lesser punishment
would undermine the value society places on protecting lives.
Robert Macy, District Attorney of Oklahoma City, described his concept
of the need for retribution in one case: "In 1991, a young mother was
rendered helpless and made to watch as her baby was executed. The
mother was then mutilated and killed. The killer should not lie in
some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV, family
visits and endless appeals. For justice to prevail, some killers just
need to die."
We do accept that executing the innocent is a fair but acceptable risk
of the death penalty. There is no proof that any innocent person has
actually been executed since increased safe...
... middle of paper ...
...ption look cheap and frivolous. Christ
demonstrated just that when he died on the cross for us. It can be
confirmed that biblical text finds that it is a violation of God's
mandate not to execute murderers-and nowhere does the text contradict
this finding.
Sum up
To conclude our debate today I would like to say: If we execute
murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a
number of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so
would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing
of a number of innocent victims. I know myself and Aine would much
rather risk the former. This is why we would like to re-introduce the
death penalty for murder charge. For us this is not a tough call. We
hope that for you, the members of the floor, this is not a tough call
either.
In The Unvanquished by William Faulkner, the theme of revenge appears throughout the story. Primarily, Bayard and Ringo avenge the death of Rosa Millard, their grandmother. By violently shooting the sociopath Grumby, Granny’s killer, their revenge is wrought through the traditional Southern form of closure, bringing about the death of the killer and avenging the victim. Next, Drusilla, Bayard’s cousin, displays revenge by joining Colonel Sartoris of the Confederate army in order to avenge the death of her fiancé. By joining the Confederates, Drusilla gains the opportunity to kill the Yankee soldiers responsible for her fiancé’s death in battle. Finally, Bayard exacts vengeance upon Redmond for murdering Colonel John Sartoris, Bayard’s father. However, Bayard achieves his goal of seeking revenge in a nonviolent way, avoiding killing anyone, breaking the traditional Southern code of revenge. Each character struggles with the necessity to avenge the death of their loved ones, seeking the ultimate, most appropriate punishment for the murderer who harms their family.
Revenge is a fairly strong emotion; it’s wanting to retaliate towards those who wronged you. Revenge is such an uncontrollable way of retaliation that it can result in a destructive outcome or carried out successfully. Although the results may vary, revenge sums up to one thing which is pain of some sort, affecting both parties or just one. Throughout history we see many tales of revenge and redemption. Often revenge does leave the one carrying it out feeling victorious but this can suddenly change as the process of karma generally begins in some tales.
takes the form of “an eye for an eye”, meaning that the offender should be punished by an act of
...l punishment as a just and morally sound method of justice. After all, "An eye for an eye" seemed to be a rationale that many embraced as fair. Now there is an era of closer examination of what is truly just and morally ethical, as well as economically sound. A consequence needs to be fair, humane, and effective. Does capital punishment meet these criteria? There are compelling reasons to change the system we have blindly acclaimed. Hopefully we are in the process of implementing a new way of dealing with an age-old dilemma.
Williams (2014) stated that the nonviolence philosophy that Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. promoted, that came from the bible, a political strategy that many people believed in was not effective enough forcing many to adapt the nonviolent tactic an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, and life for a life. This was the operation that many violent protestors believed in. According to James ( 2016) the author of the bible, when a person commits a crime, their punishment is an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life, foot for a foot, hand for a hand, burning
“…I hear the boot of Lucifer, I see his filthy face! And it is my face, and yours… God damns our kind especially, and we will burn, we will burn together” (Miller 1315). As Miller states in The Crucible, justice comes individually. Justice is not determined by the will of society, but by the honesty and leadership of an individual. Several individuals can establish justice within society if they look within themselves for fairness. One must not strive to discover justice within the law or society, but within one’s self.
Justice is part of revenge; as also for revenge is part of justice. “Justice” comes from a Latin word that means “straight, fair, equal”, it’s the quality of being righteous and loyal towards one’s state, although serves the interests of the stronger (Hourani, 1962), while revenge is the act of taking retaliation for injuries or wrongs. What ever the circumstances are being the individual who experiences a unjust act, results in the hunt for one of these two things: Justice or revenge. What are the key differences between the two? Justice can be defined as the concept of moral rightness, which is based on the rules of law, fairness, ethics, and equality among the governed citizens. Revenge, on the other hand, refers to an action taken by an individual as a response to an act of injustice. The principle of revenge is “an eye for an eye”…. Can revenge be justified and be as equally part of justice if they both seek retribution for a wrongdoing?
Retribution – is a correctional aim which is to hold a person who has committed a crime accountable for committing a crime against another or society in the form of punishment. (Stojkovic and Lovell 2013) What we look at in retribution is when someone is punished there is legitimacy in the punishment of a particular crime that was committed. Some of the pros of retribution are retribution can make a person or society feel safer or a feeling of justice being served when a person is punished for the crime they committed. The con of retribution is during court proceedings the prosecution and the offender’s lawyer may come to a plea agreement which could give the offender a lesser sentence than what he or she would have gotten originally. (Stojkovic and Lovell 2013)
An Eye for an Eye was written by Stephen Nathanson. Mr. Nathanson, like many, is against the death penalty. Mr. Nathanson believes that the death penalty sends the wrong messages. He says that by enforcing the death penalty we “reinforce the conviction that only defensive violence is justifiable.” He also states that we must, “express our respect for the dignity of all human beings, even those guilty of murder.”
Throughout history, revenge, or vengeance, has been altered by several cultures and even the American culture. This is shown throughout many ancient greek epics. Throughout these two epics, what is just revenge and what the action of revenge is are much different than what Revenge is seen through today’s society. Revenge is the main theme in The Iliad, with Achilles’ revenge on Agamemnon and Hector, and in The Odyssey, with Poseidon’s revenge on Odysseus and Odysseus’s revenge on the Suitors, and these epics define how revenge was seen in the ancient Greek world.
As said by Gandhi “An eye for an eye would make the world blind.” Bibliography Shakespeare, William. The. Othello. I am a sassy Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
“Those who plot the destruction of others often fall themselves” (Phaedrus). This quote was said by a Roman fabulist and it depicts the entire concept of revenge in Hamlet. The nature of revenge causes someone to act upon anger rather than reason. Hamlet takes place in Denmark and is about Hamlet’s uncle who kills his dad to gain power of Denmark. After the killing, Hamlet seeks revenge on his uncle. In the play, there are several characters wanting vengeance like that of Hamlet. Throughout the play, Hamlet, Laertes, and Fortinbras all had a tragic death of a family member which caused their decision for revenge. Consequentially, these revenges caused the demise of two characters and the rise of power of another. The retaliation shown by the Prince of Denmark, as well as Laertes led to the downfall of their government.
Taking revenge is a bitter sweet thing. I have always thought that people should always get what they desire, whether it be a grade, a smile and hug or in some cases, revenge. When I was in high school there seemed to be someone always trying to get me in trouble, they would say things that wouldn’t be true or do things to make me look bad. The fact that I never seemed to do anything to them would make me mad and wonder what I could do to get them back. Revenge would usually come in some sort of verbal put down or I would try to physically hurt them. It always seemed when I would get the revenge right away I would feel really good but as I thought about what I did, and what they did to me I would always feel guilty or wish I would have never done anything to them in return.
People can be motivated to take revenge on others for various reasons. While these reasons may be considered as very serious or rather trivial, they are all motives for revenge. Revenge occurs when a person has been offended or angered by an individual and in result they have the desire to pay them back. People’s opinions on revenge differ from each other, some may believe it is justified and some don’t. Mahatma Ghandi believed that revenge is not the answer and he stated that “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”. This quote portrays the opinion that if everyone gets even then there will be no one else; if we all take an eye for an eye everyone would be blind. Revenge can be learnt through real life experiences as well as fiction and can be shown as justice or unacceptable. It becomes difficult to determine when revenge can be justified but is revenge always worth it?
“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is how the saying goes. Coined by the infamous Hammurabi’s Code around 1700 BC, this ancient expression has become the basis of a great political debate over the past several decades – the death penalty. While the conflict can be whittled down to a matter of morals, a more pragmatic approach shows defendable points that are far more evidence backed. Supporters of the death penalty advocate that it deters crime, provides closure, and is a just punishment for those who choose to take a human life. Those against the death penalty argue that execution is a betrayal of basic human rights, an ineffective crime deterrent, an economically wasteful option, and an outdated method. The debate has experienced varying levels of attention over the years, but has always kept in the eye of the public. While many still advocate for the continued use of capital punishment, the process is not the most cost effective, efficient, consistent, or up-to-date means of punishment that America could be using today.