In Iran they cut off a finger of a thief. That sounds fair to me.
2006-08-11 16:26:13 · 21 answers · asked by fresh2 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I dont know what would be equal in value when a crime is committed.
A tooth for a tooth is not even right. You might be trying to pull out a tooth of the criminal who does not have a tooth but wears dentures.
When someone murders another someone, the criminal has only committed one murder in his own opinion.
But in my opinion he has murdered the whole family of that one someone.
When a rape is committed of a little child, do you think it only affects the little child?
If a whole population has been affected by crimes of others, do you think there would be a tooth for a tooth situation?
I think punishment to criminals is very lenient. I think people dont get punished enough for very severe crimes.
2006-08-11 16:42:30 · answer #1 · answered by crazy s 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Really, they should steal things from a thief. I think non-violent crimes should be given lesser punishments, and all actions that result in the loss of a human life should equal a mandatory 30 years.
I read that the average sentence for killing someone is 17 years in prison. 17. That's it. In merry old time Britain, according to Charles Dickens, over a hundred crimes were punishable by death, including some thefts.
Rape and abuse of any kind should also equal a mandatory 30 years. A woman in a town near where I live was attacked and raped around 20 years ago. The men who committed the attack are now being released from prison, and are going to live less than 2 miles from the victim. She has been taking shooting lessons in preparation for their release.
People who are evil and disturbed enough to plan a murder or an attack of a person do not deserve to live a free life. You could kill half the people who have ever been convicted of a violent crime, and few people would actually weep.
2006-08-11 23:36:51 · answer #2 · answered by reverenceofme 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes; however, most people don't have the stomach for justice. Before we get into the business of punishment, we need to reform the justice system so that it is firm, fair, and consistent.......Once that has been perfected, let the punishment begin! "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth!"
While that sounds great, no one knows just how to pull that off. Every day, you hear of someone who was mistakenly imprisoned, charged, found guilty, and then exonerated by DNA, new testimony, etc......But, yes....In a perfect world....I'd say that concept would be just.
But, hey wait!....That was what they do in Iran!? Didn't Iran "steal" 52 American Hostages back in 1779? Maybe we should cut their fingers off......Yeah, that sounds fair to me....Then they won't be able to push the "little red button" when they get their nukes on-line.....LOL
2006-08-11 23:35:16 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. US of A, Baby! 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The punishment should fit the crime. However, it would be even better if we could return the person who commits the crime back to society as a useful and contributing member of society. In the Bible (in the Old Testament), a thief who was caught would have to pay back 7 times the value of what was stolen. Sounds like a good idea to me!
2006-08-12 00:29:05 · answer #4 · answered by E Y 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If when you say the concept of "tooth for a tooth" you are eluding to the Bible verse that talks about an 'eye for an eye' I think you should know that this verse has been grossly misused by many people both Christian and non-Christian the like. As a matter of fact, Matthew 5:38 is so often misquoted by the world that many believe it is giving a license to take matters into our own hands and render evil for evil. In reality, it is referring to civil law concerning restitution. If someone steals your ox, he is to restore the ox. If someone steals and wrecks your car, he is to buy you another one...a car for a car, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. The spirit of what Jesus is saying here is radically different from the "sue the shirt off the back of your neighbor" society in which we live.
2006-08-11 23:40:56 · answer #5 · answered by Bruce Leroy - The Last Dragon 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why did he cut someones finger off before ?
If the punishment should be equal, all they needed to do was to steal something from the thief, I assume !
2006-08-11 23:30:53 · answer #6 · answered by Moosty 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In some cases yes I do. I think for making/selling illegal drugs the death penality should be in place and not take years gettng the job done.
I think isolation in our jails would do a great job. prisoners are there for breaking the law and should pay the toll.
If a man like the snipers in dc is found guility beyond any doubt this should mean jurors do not have years to convict someone who is guility wihtout a doubt due to investigations, eyewritnesses ect. They take quick action on victims(the crooks do) so we should take immediate action on dealing out punishment.
2006-08-11 23:33:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Should the punishment equal the crime? I think that depends on motives. If my children were hungry enough, I would steal to feed them if I had no other way. However, child molesters? Yes, I am thinking of a digit that they could cut off, and it isn't on any hands or feet.
2006-08-11 23:30:31 · answer #8 · answered by The Nag 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I believe the phrase is actually "an eye for an eye".
Other than that, I don't believe in that school of wisdom exactly, but I do think that our justice system is far from perfect. Some people get off too easy, some people get a punishment that is too harsh for their crime.
2006-08-11 23:32:49 · answer #9 · answered by Victoria C 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Its not right in the bible it says you may have heard an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but I tell you turn the other cheek.
2006-08-11 23:32:41 · answer #10 · answered by biggied223 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋