What is so wrong about "an eye for an eye"...

What is so wrong about "an eye for an eye"? I'd say there isnt justice in a criminal murdering someone and getting to keep having a life 20 years later.

Its worse with murderers who are under 18 that only get 5-10 years in Juvie.

If human beings aren't challenged, they become complacent and ignorant.

Hence why it's the industrialized social democracies that come up with all this stupid shit about abolishing capital punishment, or ending war, or mass immigration from third world shitholes.

They should just be stentenced to death, it's the most human things to do with our technology.

The problem is thanks to various bureaucratic and legal red tape it takes years to finally execute someone, at least in america.

No one should be allowed to determine who gets to live and who gets to die. That's why we punish murderers. No judge or jury should be allowed to determine this either.

>"Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
>It actually just leaves two people with only one eye

Because justice is, at least in the minds of most people, more fine grained than that.

Ok, so you're for the death penalty for murder. What about manslaughter? Negligent homicide? Improper self defense? (where this is distinct from manslaughter) What if two people each acting independently and in ignorance of each other's actions kill a man when either effort alone would be insufficient to do so?

Does intent mean nothing?

Yall are relating this only to murder. Eye for an eye tooth for a tooth means that if someone steals from me i can steal from them. If someone burns down your house you can burn down there's. Apply this to millions of people and you have violent uncontrolled anarchy.

>What is so wrong about "an eye for an eye"? I'd say there isnt justice in a criminal murdering someone and getting to keep having a life 20 years later.

So are you asking about proportional punishment in general or are you asking about capital punishment?

Mr. Al killed Mr. Ba
So Mr. Ba's brother Bb kills Mr. Al
So Mr. Al's son gathers up his cousins, Mr. Ki and Mr. Pe and head out to kill Mr Bb
But Mr Bb expected this and gathered his friends, Mr. Ga and Mr. Hi
So now it's Mr. Al's son, Mr. Ki, and Mr. Pe versus Mr. Bb, Mr. Ga, and Mr. Hi.
Al's son dies in the fight, as does Mr. Bb, and Mr. Ki Mr. Pe, while Mr. Ga is wounded.
So, by now, we've 6 deaths, 1 wounded, 1 survivor.
Now Mr. Al's wife is upset that her husband and son have both been murdered by Mr. Bb, and she writes out to her friends and ask them to seek justice. As does Mr. Bb's wife, and so we've got several other families involved in this. Additionally, Mr. Ki and Mr. Pe's families are upset, and join up with Mr. Al's wife in gathering forces.
So now the original people who caused the crime are dead, and this is now a war between families and their friends.
Mr. Ga has been wounded, and he doesn't want any more fighting. But how can he stop the three families that are gathered against him? Isn't this just going to grow out as more deaths cry in more calls for help, bringing in more and more peoples into this conflict?
He has a few options: call his family into this mess, which will only bring more death. He could turn himself in, and probably be executed, and his friends will not sit easily with that.
But, what if there was a way that Mr. Ga could accept blame in a method that would not cause his death and aggrivate the situation? What if he could say "I accept blame for this situation, and I will take the responsibilities of making payment and services required to the family of the late Mr. Al. And if that means I must go behind bars for years because I defended the cause of my friend who was defending the murder of his friend, I will do as much so that there is no more bloodshed."