http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100819/world/ml_saudi_justice

so apparently in Saudi Arabia and according to Islamic Law.... if you hurt somebody the punishment back to you should be the same (if possible).

It turns out that a man was paralyzed after another man attacked him and the attacker may get paralyzed as his punishment for doing this.

Does this seem absolutely barbaric to anyone else? I'm all for giving an equivalent punishment for a crime... but in this case you might as well just kill the guy because he's only going to become a burden for a bunch of people..

but maybe that's the point. Teach a whole bunch of people a lesson... still seems a little crazy to me.

Wow that is pretty crazy. I can see that as being fair... an eye for an eye, but usually that is revolved outside of courtroom justice when someone takes matters into their own hands and decides what to do.

It can be good and it can be bad however this leads to a HUGE error and that is how can one punish the suspect without getting punished themselves? That does not make sense. An eye for an eye can only work in a 2 way situation involving the suspect and the victim but if you have a 3rd party involved (court system) doing the punishment then that means THEY are not obeying the eye for eye law they are cheating the system.

I kinda like this though... it will make people think twice before doing something evil to another human That would suck if you ran over someone with a car or light them on fire... well at least you know how you'll die

That's VERY crazy. In America, I think the population would go down by quite a bit.

yeah, it's a tough call.... part of me likes the idea of handing out the exact same punishments that the criminals inflicted on their victims.... but something like this feels so extreme. It's hard to justify it in it's own way....

but if you knew that breaking someones arm would mean getting yours broken.... that might help prevent some crimes.... tough to know though. People still murder in the US even though there is a possible death penalty in some states.

When "eye for eye" is in effect under Mosaic Law its intent is that the prosecution shouldn’t be too lenient, or too strict. When we’re wronged our natural instinct is to do to him as he did to me, especially the court system in "to the full extent of the law".

I think its liberal without proper discernment in that the punishment won’t always fit the crime.

It has some merit, but not really any more than our system. It doesn't have the same holes as our system, it has DIFFERENT holes.

tRIUNE : well, under Mosaic Law the victim (or the victim's family) was supposed to carry out the punishment. In extreme cases like murder the criminal could choose exile rather than death and if they returned it was with the risk of being killed.... brutal system honestly.... but more just in ways than the one we have now.

I feel like the current system cares too much for the criminal and not enough for the victims of crime.

I don't remember where I heard this but "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind". Although I would like to see "eye for an eye" applied to all white collar criminals.

tonetone714 : isn't that from a song?

And while I agree in a sense.... I also think that if you intentionally caused someone to lose their sight why do you deserve to keep yours? It seems more just than sticking someone in jail for 5 years or making them pay a fine or do community service. I'm not saying it does any good.... just that it seems more just.

"I feel like the current system cares too much for the criminal and not enough for the victims of crime."

Couldn't agree more. The eye-for-eye law seems fair. But if it's used to fulfill a personal vendetta it seems flawed.

"The eye-for-eye law seems fair. But if it's used to fulfill a personal vendetta it seems flawed."

How so?

The system still required a judge to approve the punishment. It wasn't simply take it into your own hands and extract "justice". Moses set up a hierarchy of judges that would attempt to handle these situations and exact punishments. But with certain punishments the victim had to deal out the punishment itself. ie: stoning someone to death.

The law of retribution established the principle that the punishment should fit the crime... the greater the crime, the harsher the penalty. But the idea was still "no more" than eye-for-eye, etc.

I can see the victims feeling that the retribution would be inadequate, but I guess that would be their problem not the court's. Still, if this is to be the law then it would justify the "sue the shirt off the back of your neighbor" mentality.

It is the only fair way I can imagine doing anything(as long as it isn't accidental). How else would you decide a fair punishment?