How do you feel about "an eye for an eye" law?
152621
Capital punishment serves as the best deterent. There will be crime though but the penalty for getting caught will be severe so lesser crimes can be expected.\n\nIn my opinion, everyone has done one thing or the other in his/her life, an inmate is one who gets caught the rest are innocent. No one actually is.
551407
A eye for a eye, a tooth for a tooth.
752766
I haven't followed this political case, but I believe that any law named after a person is questionable since those pusing it will often be reacting based on emotion and grief, rather than reason.\n\nAny good law will have safeguards, and rational provisions so that whatever action is made illegal is really the action that is the threat. I generally oppose laws that make actions illegal just because they might, in combination with other actions, have the potential to cause harm. I believe in punishing those who cause the harm, and not limiting action based purely on speculation.\n\nThat being said, the voting process has become an emotional one. People -- whether voters or legislators -- pass laws based on their gut reactions, often without any concern for the consequences or long term effects. Logic and reason have largely been abandoned in favor of making headlines.\n\nAnd sadly, that's not likely to change any time soon. Good luck.
112829
The meaning is a little broader than simply revenge.  The term "eye for an eye" appears in Exodus 21:24-25.  It is about compensation for injuries and also criminal penalties (i.e. let the punishment fit the crime).
856203
We can defend ourselves. A little known fact for those who haven't actually studied the Bible is this: The eye for an eye rule was actually put in place for the protection of the criminal. For example, if they cut off your hand you cannot kill them for it. You were only allowed to cut off their right hand.\nYou are correct in saying that Jesus wants us to focus on leading people to him and building treasure in heaven not earth.\n\nThe verse you used came from Matthew 5:38. \n"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'  But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
466748
IIRC, it's not the Geneva convention (which deals with the treatment of Prisoners Of War, as my precedessor has written, also with protection of non-combat personnel, treating the wounded, and protecting cultural assets, among other things).\n\nIn Hague convention there's a passage that prohibits "weapons that produce unnecessary suffering". This was interpreted in many ways. The most common opinion is that weapons that maim aren't allowed.\n\nIt's perfectly okay with the rules if the enemy is maimed as a side effect of your attempt to kill him on the spot, but weapons that are intended to cripple only are considered a big no-no.\n\nAs for blinding - IIRC, flash-bang grenades are okay, for they cause only temporary blindness. It is the weapons that cause permanent blindness that are opposed (they are, AFAIK, based on laser, used to burn victim's retina).\n\nWhile it's a matter of personal judgement whether it's more humanitarian to kill someone on the spot, or render him crippled for life, my call is that I, personally, would prefer to be dead than blind. Not that I'd be likely to have any choice, anyway...
761860
Agree.  Criminials like for their victims to be unarmed.  The only thing a gun law ever did was cause crime rates to go up, because criminals are no longer afraid they might get shot.
999797
Yes and no.\n\nI think the criminal system, even with it's flaws is still the best.  I wouldn't want to lose my rights to an attorney or a trial by a jury of the community and being innocent until proven guilty etc. when my freedom is at stake.\n\nCIVIL LAW however DESPERATELY needs to be OVERHAULED!  The fact that anyone can sue anyone else for anything and that person sued still has to go through the courts to get a case dismissed is TOO loose.  I think that there should be more ethics requirements on lawyers and fines for those who file frivilous lawsuits to discourage such stupid practices.
406652
"eye for an eye" did not actually BECOME "love your enemy"  \nBOTH have a proper application.  But in Matthew 5 (Sermon on the Mount) Jesus DID call his followers that to apply the second rather than the first in their personal lives\n\nTo begin with, Jesus did not say he was "amending" the Law.  He said he came to FUFLILL it, and that not the smallest letter or least stroke of a pen would pass away until all was fulfilled"  \n\nTHEN, immediately after that, Jesus explains how the Law is to be APPLIED.   He does so by giving a series of examples.  In each case he contrasts how HE calls his disciples to live their lives with how others were saying the Law should be applied.  It is important that he does NOT say, "the Law says... but I say".  Rather he says,  "you have heard it said... but I say".  And several of the "sayings" are clearly NOT from the Law.\n\nThus Jesus is NOT saying that when the Law says things like "an eye for an eye" there is NO proper application of them. \nActually, the quotes he gives that DO echo the Law (several do not!) have to do with the judicial system, that is, what society ought to require of people, punish, etc.   Jesus is not taking issue with that.  But he is countering what people were doing with it --applying it to their PERSONAL lives as a way to JUSTIFY themselves and limit their responsibility.\n\nSo, for instance, on the law against adultery, Jesus "extends" it to apply to lusting after a woman.  Is he suggesting that the courts should punish people's THOUGHTS?  No, of course not.  He is not talking about the courts at all!  Rather, he is telling his disciples that they are not 'keeping the commandments' just be avoiding the overt act of adultery.  GOD looks at the heart.\n\nIt's the same with other matters.  Jesus addresses "oath formulas" since teachers of the Law were saying that one formula was binding, another was not.  This was a way by which people could excuse their not keeping their word or telling the truth.   Jesus critiques this and calls people to basic trustworthiness and HONESTY -- "Let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No' be 'No'."    He is not saying "End the taking of oaths in court" (again, he is NOT addressing the judicial system).  In fact, it appears that Jesus himself submit to being put under oath at his own trial (responding to "I adjure you by the living God" which is a way of putting one under oath).\n\nIn the same way, Jesus calls his disciples in their personal lives and dealings with people NOT to use the "eye for an eye" as an excuse.  (And, indirectly, it CAN have a legal application, such as deciding NOT to sue someone, but rather to be wronged [as Paul says in 1 Cor 5].)\n\nOne other piece of evidence that Jesus was NOT calling for throwing out the Law is that much of his language in this Sermon and elsewhere echoes that of the Prophets, who similarly call God's people to not look for 'loopholes' in the Law to try to excuse their own behavior, esp. their abuse and lack of concern for the poor and disadvantaged among them  (key examples - Isaiah 1, Jeremiah 7, Amos 6).
692645
NOPE, AN EYE FOR AN EYE!\n\nWHAT ABOUT THE VICTIM'S RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY & THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS?\n\nLETHAL INJECTION OR FIRING SQUAD ISNT REALLY CRUEL OR UNUSUAL.\n\nVICTIMS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!\n\nCRUEL AND USUAL WOULD BE FEEDING THE CONVICT TO A GATOR OR SHARK, ETC.\n\nP.S. - WHERE I COME FROM, WE CHOP OFF THE OFFENDING BODY PART!
715649
The slow advance of facism is upon us.  Even with the recent election, many conservatives still support the Iraq fiasco and vote for stupid laws like the one you cite.  It says something about us.  It's frightening.  In fact, it's fear that is driving a lot of this supposed defense stuff.  Security at airports.  Now limits to the right to peaceful assembly?  \n\nThe only way to show how we feel about an unjust 'law' is to break the law.  Sit ins and teach ins helped with the Civil Rights Movement. Civil disobedience is our duty.\n\nIf we allow ourselves to be legislated into a corner, then what ever trouble that visits us, we deserve, don't we?\n\nIt's shameful to erode the First Amendment!  Yes, this 'law' is wrong and goes too far!  I would hope that Kansas and other states would be challenged in this case.  But, Kansas still thinks that Darwin is wrong.  How do you deal with that sort of stupidity?\n\nAre we sheep being led to the slaughter?  Are you?  Am I?\n\nWhat's next?
759548
The Bible says "Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."  Deuteronomy 19:21\n\nGandhi said: "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind".\n\nThe Bible suggests "an eye for an eye" as an actual standard for punishment.  If Joe injures Bob and Bob becomes blind in one eye, then Joe will be punished by having one of his own eyes blinded.\n\nGhandi argued that this approach is wrong.  My interpretation of what he meant is that If a world where one person loses an eye is bad, to have two people lose their eyes is worse.  Violence by the state is just as bad as violence by the person.\n\nLinks take you to the Bible quote and to the wikipedia article on Gandhi.
147898
Abolish it entirely.  Our justice system is not infalible.  There have been multiple people sentanced to death and exhonorated post-mortem.  That's enough reason for me.  Besides which the death penalty is motivated by revenge, not justice.  An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
270395
Isnt that frustrating?   Sometimes it feels like the laws are out to get the good honest citizens, instead of the criminals.  Unfortunately, the way things are going, what's going to happen first is the law abiding citizens giving up their guns.  There is little to be done, unless a very big change of attitude comes into play.  My personal theory is that we are way too many and something huge has to happen to the majority of us, so we can start with a cleaner slate.\nSorry, but know I feel your frustration.
944910
nope there would be a public outburst and there would have to be a public votee to bring in a law like that., its against the constitution,id say the shopkeeper is just ignorant.:D.XXX
909657
simply put YES.\n\nI feel that it should be a case by case basis.. but when it comes to terrorism then You bet..\nHowever\n\nIt should be regulated in the sense that not any soldoer can do this..only interrogators or the soldier in the group who has been assigned that duty.\n\nIf we allowed any and all soldiers to wildy use any means on the enemy most of the enemy would never be seen alive again once they were captured...  Keep in mind the mentality of a soldier who captures a combatant after just seeing his best buddy killed nest to him... \nYou think he is in the right frame of mind to be objective ???\n\nSO I think there wold need to be some rules.. but YES\nI am for it 100%.\n\nThese ae not our friends they are our enemies.. they mean to do harm to Americans all Americans they do not care if you are anti war or Muslim or a child or old.. If you are an American they would kill you soon as look at you..  its stupid and rediculous but its the way they terrorist grgoups think and how they are trained... SO yes... \n\nSorry if this sounds harsh.. buts how I feel.\n\nGood Luck\n\nWismom
30397
it's just being a horrible person lol....contrary to popular belief, the law does not require you to do anything if you witness an accident, but it is a nice thing to do....I mean, I'm sure if the person who witnessed an accident were to get in that same situation some day, they'd want someone to help them instead of letting them die. Just my opinion tho.