top of page

Eye-For-An-Eye Justice System

Issue

   Incarceration has been ineffective over the years resulting in overcrowded prisons with convicts returning to a life of crime. Would an eye-for-an-eye policy be more effective as a punitive measure than the current prison system?
Eye-For-An-Eye (Primary Principle)
 
   The eye-for-an-eye principle reflects an ideal that is not based on vengeance, but rather represents a fair and just balance of life through the proper reinforcement of one's actions. Jesus may have referred to this when he said:
                         So in everything, do to others what you would have them
                              do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
                                                                                         Matthew 7:12
 
   This passage reflects that the eye-for-an-eye principle should be adhered to when administering corrective measures. For example, people should not steal from others unless they want to be stolen from, or strike anyone unless they want to be stricken in return. It is a simple principle to live by and it should prevent a person from committing a wrongful act since they would receive similar treatment in kind.
Eye-For-An-Eye (Balanced Reconciliation)

   The eye-for-an-eye principle should not only be a measure to live by (to prevent wrongful acts from being committed), but also serves as a basis to administer proper justice for criminal offenses. Whether the balanced reconciliation effort is personal (to resolve one's mistakes in life) or communal (as a form of public justice).

   For to impose greater or lesser reinforcement than the act itself would be an unfair and unjust handling of the situation. Customary measures such as imposing fines, community service, imprisonment, or exile should be used as a secondary means if the eye-for-an-eye principle is not feasible.

   Examples of where the eye-for-an-eye rule may not apply are when a young child accidentally harms a sibling with a weapon. Or, long-term abuse causes the victim to harm others. Or, sexual assault situations where it would be inappropriate to return a similar act to the offender. Customary measures should be used when the eye-for-an-eye principle does not fully balance the situation due to unusual or uncontrollable circumstances.

   Incarceration, however, seems to be the least effective in correcting errant behavior since the prison system has failed to deter crime for hundreds of years. So, why are we continuing with it as a corrective measure? Since incarceration has shown to be ineffective, prison complexes should be shutdown worldwide and replaced with a more effective means of rectifying criminal acts.

   A better manner of correcting errant behavior would be to impose an eye-for-an-eye style of punishment followed by increased fines and/or community service. For situations where the death penalty is not permitted, exile should be considered as an alternative since the offender had failed to uphold the laws of the country which justifies their dismissal.

   Overall, the eye-for-an-eye equality rule will help people put things in perspective and everyone will know beforehand what would happen to them if they carried out an illegal act since similar action will be returned in kind as balanced reconciliation. This will be effective in preventing crime.
bottom of page