Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
An Essay On An Eye For An Eye
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: An Essay On An Eye For An Eye
"An eye for an eye", one phrase that is used as more than just fiction and in some countries it is the basis of their criminal law. The phrase "an eye for an eye" in the criminal world refers to the term retaliation; the law of retaliation. It's the principle that a person who has done harm to another person is penalized to a similar degree. For example, someone who takes a life might expect to give up his or her own life in return. This concept is suppose to present to people that the punishment for their crime will be just given to the same degree as the crime that was done. However, in this day and age people have no regard for consequences and many expect to get away with their crimes therefore making this concept of punishment hard and unable to be an effective deterrent. One reason this concept for punishment is ineffective is because many people have no regard for consequences. Some people don't think about the fact that there are payments that need to be paid for every action that is made. There should be many things in peoples lives that discourages them from …show more content…
committing a crime. But with revenge and payback at the forefront of their brains, it's difficult to see what is the right decision that is needed to be made. And there are many situations that can bring out the need for revenge: for example, if something is stolen from someone, a person picks a fight with another, there is a murder in someone's family, or even an attempted murder can all be triggers. Secondly, Another reason for the concept of "an eye for an eye" being ineffective is that many people believe they can get away with their crimes.
There are crimes committed all the time and with many of these crimes people do not want to face the consequences for their actions. Sometimes this leads to people running, hiding, and skipping town to get away from the law. It's almost as if they believe if they aren't around they won't get caught of become a suspect. However, there cannot be just one main reason to determine why people believe they will get away with their crime. Some may believe answering the right questions the correct way will get them off, or blending in with every day life, or moving to another state or across the country will help their case. Either way they choose to go, they feel that these action will help them get away free of punishment after committing a
crime. In conclusion, "an eye for an eye" in some countries is the basis of their criminal law not just a phrase used in a fictional story. In the criminal world it refers to the law of retaliation and getting back just what you have given. It's the principle that a person who has done harm to another person is penalized to a similar degree. Now days people have no regard for consequences and many expect to get away with their crimes therefore making this concept of punishment unable to be an effective deterrent.
takes the form of “an eye for an eye”, meaning that the offender should be punished by an act of
punishment is an asset to society: it is the only punishment that fits the crime, it deters potential criminals
Finally it is not cost efficient or effective. The certainty of arrest, prosecution, conviction, imprisonment and punishment has a far greater deterrent effect than the brutality of punishment.
"An eye for an eye", this quote is used often among many diversities of people; however, Edgar Allan Poe took this quote to extremes in his story The Cask of Amontillado. Poe's usage of dramatic and verbal irony, foreshadowing and symbolism brings about a strong tale of revenge. Revenge is a feeling that has the ability to over come a person's grip on reality. The narrator, Montresor feels that he was greatly insulted by the unfortunate Fortunado. For this reason Montresor seeks revengeance on Fortunado for his heinous crime.
Retribution is the philosophy best explained by the famous saying, “an eye for an eye”. Those that believe in this form of justice hold a strict and harsh view on punishments for crime. The proponents of retribution believe that severe penalties act as deterrence to future crime, however, studies
middle of paper ... ... For that, it is hard to say whether it is effective in the United States in its current state. It might just be a problem with implementation. Conclusion: All in all, intermediate sanctions have been shown to be an effective alternative to prison.
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.”
Revenge is best served cold or so says the well-known expression. This idea of revenge that they seek is usually to restore balance and take an “eye for an eye” as the Bible says. Revenge, if by chance everyone were in Plato’s perfect utopia, would be in a perfect form, where justice and revenge would be one, and the coined phrase “eye for an eye” would be taken literally. By taking an eye for and eye, and punishing those who did wrong equally as they did wrong, there is justice. However, this revenge sometimes goes too far and is consequently not justice.
In the excerpt from Stephen Nathanson’s 1987 book entitled An Eye for an Eye?, he argues against the “eye for an eye” principle, or lex talionis. The principle states that the punishment given to criminals should be equal to what they did to their victims. Nathanson argues that there are two problems with this principle. First, it permits and justifies extremely immoral actions - rape and murder are not in any way morally permissible and people should not be subjected to such treatment. Second, it is extremely difficult and often impossible to apply to most cases. Making the punishment equal the crime in cases of drug trafficking, drunk driving, or unlawful possession is simply not possible, so therefore the principle crumbles and is revealed
The death penalty is the lawful killing of a human being after a trial by
penalty punishes them not for what they may or may not do in the future but what
Society has many different views on crime and punishment. During earlier times, the crime fit the punishment meaning an “eye for an eye” approach. If a thief was caught, their hands would be cut off. If a man killed another man, they would be killed as well. They did not have a chance to tell their side of the story, if people thought they were guilty, they were. Much has changed in the way we handle crime in the world today. In today’s world, when a person commits a crime they have rights to a fair trial and have the luxury of the Fifth Amendment. Now when a killer kills someone they get to tell their side of the story and have to be proven guilty. However, it does not matter where you go, if there are people then there will always be crime.
Provide the justifications for punishment in modern society. Punishment functions as a form of social control and is geared towards “imposing some unwanted burden such as fines, probations, imprisonment, or even death” on a convicted person in return for the crimes they committed (Stohr, Walsh, & Hemmens, 2013, p.6). There are four main justifications for punishment and they are: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. There is also said to be a fifth justification of reintegration as well.
Punishment has been in existence since the early colonial period and has continued throughout history as a method used to deter criminals from committing criminal acts. Philosophers believe that punishment is a necessity in today’s modern society as it is a worldwide response to crime and violence. Friedrich Nietzche’s book “Punishment and Rehabilitation” reiterates that “punishment makes us into who we are; it creates in us a sense of responsibility and the ability to take and release our social obligations” (Blue, Naden, 2001). Immanuel Kant believes that if an individual commits a crime then punishment should be inflicted upon that individual for the crime committed. Cesare Beccaria, also believes that if there is a breach of the law by individuals then that individual should be punished accordingly.
punishment to be done to whoever did the crime. If the criminal doesn't get the kind of