An Eye for an Eye should reduce violent crime

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Are punishments for crimes harsh enough?

  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

I’m sure most of you are familiar with some parts of Hammurabi’s code. So I’d like to focus on why I think it should be implemented today.

First: It is obvious that the punishments that the world deems fit for criminals are not sufficient enough to deter criminal activity. Rising crime rates speak volumes to that.

Second, in the United States the average car thief spends more time behind bars than those convicted of more heinous crimes like rape and second degree murder. What are we saying here? That cars are more valuable than life? Absurd.

A bit of case law to show that the ‘justice system’ is a failure: (Mind you this is an older case) Katco vs. Briney: The situation is as follows: Briney inherits some farm land from his family, but chooses not to live there. Over the course of several months the house on this land is repeatedly broken into by vagrants. Briney, tired of paying for repairs to his private property caused by damages these vagrants inflicted decides to set a trap. He sets a spring-loaded shotgun to fire if a certain area of the house is penetrated.

Well, long story short, a burglar named Katco breaks into the farmhouse, again, and has his leg blown off by the shotgun. So what happens next you ask? Katco sues Briney and wins. What? Are you kidding me? How is what Briney did a crime? Is it not the inherent right of the property owner to defend his property? If Katco did not commit a crime to begin with, (breaking and entering) then he wouldn’t have suffered any consequences. But alas, dark days we live in now. Criminals who hurt themselves while commiting crimes against me can sue me and win. Unbelieveable!

So here’s my proposition: We need to reinstate parts of Hammurabi’s Code. Specifically rules 196 and 197 which are stated as follows:

  1. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.

  2. If he break another man’s bone, his bone shall be broken.

I’d like to add a few more to this list that I truly believe might help reduce violent crime.

Crooked Mouth’s code:

  1. However you kill someone is how we shall kill you.

(An example: A few years ago in Texas a black man was dragged to death while tied up to the back of two red-necks truck. Why did they do this? Pure and utter racism. No other reason. So these losers will face the death penalty in Texas but will sit on Death Row for an average of 15-20 years watching TV and lifting weights before they are put to death in a humane fashion. Pure garbage. Tie these wastes of humanity to the back of a pickup truck and drag them to death, then televise it. The purpose served is two-fold: 1) Criminals will now see that whatever they do to someone else will be done to them and 2) Instead of wasting money keeping these fools alive, the state can actually generate revenue from the advertisement spots it sells for the T.V. time that is spent covering this retribution.)

  1. If you are convicted of molesting children or raping another human being, you will be castrated or sewn up, which-ever gender you are part of deciding the punishment.

  2. 3 Strikes and you’re out will be eliminated. 1 Strike and you go to jail, forever.

(Felonies are a big deal. There should be no second chances. Why did you commit a crime to begin with. It is obvious there is an inherent flaw with individuals who commit crimes, thus they should be punished forever. This is because most criminals are repeat offenders and shouldn’t have the right to commit more crimes against society. Oh yeah, no TV, no Weights to lift, nothing to eat but gruel.)

That’s it for now. I will add more of Crooked Mouth’s code as per your responses dictate. I would appreciate any suggestions / comments regarding this idea.

2

I used to work for the prison system and there are a couple of problems that I see.

Firstly, the worse the punishment the more a person may try to evade capture. Currently, an assault, depending on the severity, will get you a fairly short sentence, if you get one at all. However, if an assault brought you a methodical government beating, it might behoove the criminal to simply kill the person that they planned to assault. Getting rid of witnesses would make a lot of sense.

I think that this is why so many rape victims are simply murdered. In Pennsylvania, were I worked, most rapists (depending on the type) would end up with 70 to 80 year sentences. I always found this to be a rather sarcastic version of a life sentence. Anyway, rapists and the like are kind of crazy and think that their victims deserve such treatment. So, in their own twisted way they think that their actions are correct. They want to avoid jail, so then you just kill the victim, so that they can continue with their mission.

Harsh sentences can increase the violence of crimes.

Let’s say that the eye for an eye laws did pass, then who would carry out the perverted sentences? Working in a prison is a miserable experience. The employees that work in such an environment suffer from a lot of stress. Sometimes stress creeps up on you. Something what you did or saw today can bother you two months from now. So, who will be the eyeball scooper, and who will guarantee that they don’t go crazy from doing it?

My experience of prison is that it is a mind numbingly boring place to be and over the years people go gradually crazy. That’s weird enough already.

3

The Adlerian wrote:

Can is not necessarily will. I understand that your concern is that, in the short run, criminals might actually be induced into killing their victims. Short run only. Once we hunt these murderers down and eliminate them publicly I believe the prevalence of such crimes will drastically reduce.

The Adlerian wrote:

Simple answer: Ever heard of jury duty? Same principle, except that this is one job I wouldn’t try to weasel my way out of. It would become the responsibility of each member of our society to ensure that punishments were carried out. Once the criminal element realized that average citizens have the will to inflict the same damage back, I think criminals might think twice before attempting any illegal activity.

It is the responsibility of all citizens to take a stand and stop criminals. Therefore anyone who refused their civil duty of inflicting punishment on the criminals would become criminals themselves and should also be punished. We must stop trying to be nice to everyone who would try to hurt us. We can’t simply hope that they will go away. They will not. We must fight back and take a stand, only through strength will we have the utopian society that most strive for.

4

I’m pretty sure that there are correlations between illegality and a rise in violence. Prohibition would be a great example of this and current drug laws would be another example. People get killed over weed, for example.

Anyway, another mistake is that there aren’t a supply of murders that will go away. Many murders happen all in a few seconds and were not planned. This is an important argument against the death penalty as a deterrent. Murder will never stop happening.

Additionally, if you have noticed, many murders are not very smart people. They, like Scott Peterson, will come up with a plan that any moron can see through and think that it is brilliant. These types are very narcissistic and live in their own delusional world. They will also never go away. They risk lethal injection and life in a small cell, but they don’t care, because it doesn’t enter their mind.

It is also impossible to predict who will be a murderer and who won’t. You could have some guy that hates women and has a female dismemberment art collection and that’s as far as it goes. You can have a truck driver with a family and he likes to kill blonde girls, because it’s just so obvious that they are whores. The formula that makes people want to kill is very complex. It’s too complex.

Regarding your ideas about jury duty: have you ever hurt anyone, made them cry, or actually made or caused someone to bleed? You don’t have to answer, but I have. When I was a kid I used to get into physical fights a lot until my conscience kicked in and I turned my own stomach. While working in a mental hospital I had to restrain people that were going crazy, on many occasions. This means that I was using maximum pressure to get someone to submit. Yes, this was to stop them from hurting themselves or others, but still I was just hurting them to get them to comply. In prison I have had to order guards to apply electrified shields to people and beat them into submission. Speaking from the heart here, I did not much enjoy it at the time and the cumulative effect makes me not want to do it again.

Much of the population does not want to tell you if you have something hanging out of your nose, and I so I don’t think that they would be up for sticking a hot spike into someone’s eye. People would go crazy and develop post traumatic stress disorder. People would even commit suicide. We have a fairly nice population in the US that does not think about violence too much and it that it would ruin our country.

I must say that I understand the feelings behind your post. I have read cases in prison that made me want to immediately go and kill the prisoner. On several occasions I dreamed of shooting several guys that I knew of in the stomach and locking their cell door. A good case of peritonitis would be a nice punishment. I think that I might be able to do this and survive mentally, but the average cheerleader might not.

5

The Adlerian wrote:

Firstly: I truly appreciate your feedback. I don’t proclaim that it would be easy or pleasant for that matter, just necessary. I think if society in general were responsible for punishing others, we might come to realize that it is for the benefit of society to do so. Are you familiar with the old saying, “spare the rod and spoil the child”? This is what is happening with our world. Too many people try to be nice to everyone and look what the result is. We must instill fear once again. Not fear of living mind you. If you don’t commit crimes, you will have nothing to worry about. But once a crime has been committed we must make the consequences severe enough to make the cost/benefit analysis of committing crimes unreasonable. Even if people would prefer to commit crimes the costs associated with such actions will outweigh any benefits that might be derived.

Secondly: I know that these measures would most likely not eliminate all murder, but I truly believe it would drastically reduce it. Not all criminals are idiots. And for those rational people who have one moment of irrationality guide them into making a life-altering mistake, i.e. murder, these new punishments might help eliminate these actions. But one quick side thought: If you were going to kill someone like O.J., do you think it would be smarter to wear gloves that fit or gloves that don’t? A smart criminal would wear gloves that don’t and then leave them behind and say, “If the gloves don’t fit, you must acquit.” So not all criminals are stupid, which is why we need to enforce harsher penalties to make it unreasonable for the smart ones too.

6

Like I said, I understand the spirit of your post, and as you can see I have thought along similar lines.

The facts is that in the prison where I worked there were about 3500 to 4000 guys there at any time. The place had 2 Asians, 250 Hispanics, 250 Caucasians, and all the rest were Black people. Out of this population there were 700 murderers. I knew most of the murderers and got along with almost all of them.

Many were crazy freaks, but even more of them were poor people that got caught up in economically oriented crimes. These guys were part of gangs and drug dealing and then people got killed. So, it was more like a war situation than a twisted desire to kill people. These guys did not give me the impression that they would kill people again especially the guys that had committed their crime like twenty years ago. You never know though. Anyway, the murderers where the best behaved bunch in the prison. To cut costs, they were hired to do office work and stuff and I had a whole team of lifers as coworkers. I think about them everyday.

After I quite, I went to work in the neighborhood that most of the guys came from. In this part of town the schools are heinous, there is a cultural prohibition against being educated (because it’s white), crime is seen as being Robin Hood-like, mothers are having kids that they don’t really care about by men that don’t care about anybody, getting a girl pregnant is an act of spreading your seed to counteract the white holocaust, and so forth. The kids grow up poor, uneducated, and unloved. This makes for a lot of trouble.

Anyway, when something is done about this shameful situation and the social playing field is relatively equal, then I believe that most of the criminals will be the pathological types. Meanwhile, if we started violently punishing criminals I think that we would have a pile of black bodies that reached for the sky. Black people are way over represented in crime across the country. I know why, but even someone that doesn’t should find it weird. A minority is a major in the field of negativity!?

Social clean-up is needed.

About punishment: I don’t want my girlfriend firing up the diesel barbed dildo machine at the local penal facility and then chopping some perp’s hands and feet off in response to his rape/mutilation. This may not be counterbalanced by my recent application of a skull fracturing (with ball peen hammer) of a violent 18 year old, and I wouldn’t want to have to deal with that. I got my own problems! Really, this is what people would have to deal with.

Anyway, I do not claim to have answers, but my experience has shown me that most criminals are misanthropes, due to bad treatment in their youth. They may be beyond help but I don’t think that cruelty is the answer stopping the creation of more violent people.

7

HELLO F(R)IEND(S)

Hi Crooked, I really like Hammurabi’s code and your proposals are very good. I will add a few things I think should be considered and I have a few questions/comments. For beginners, when you have a chance, could you please cite your source. I am not challenging its veracity but I would love to use this to further your idea.

A friend told me of this case and I agree that these cases are ridiculous. However, this case isn’t really about Hammurabi’s code since breaking and entering is not a crime punishable by death. Are you suggesting that it should be? I would not necessarily disagree since I believe that the intent of Hammurabi’s code is to PREVENT crime from occuring due to strict (even harsh) penalties. Now if you are arguing that citizens should have a right to defend their property (which I am sure you are) then I completely agree.

I can see the benefit of these being used. I would wager that after a few widely publicized cases of executing murders through 30 stab wounds that at the very leasts some criminals would get wise and kill their victims much more efficiently. I have often argued that punishments in the United States are not severe enough.

A few things I would propose:

  1. Criminals that are sentenced to death should be executed within 3 months. Allowing these criminals to drain so many tax dollars from the community is unacceptable. Any errors in the system (innocents) are collateral damage and cannot sue.

  2. Non-violent criminal offenders of felonies (burglars, thieves, Enron scum) should be allowed two (2) strikes. The first strike = 25 to life. The second strike = death.

  3. Child molesters should not be given a second chance–life in prison.

  4. Rapists should not be given a second chance–life in prison.

  5. The criminally insane should be sentenced to death (no medical attention).

  6. The temporary insanity issue should not be allowed. We are actually condoning this stupid behavior? The wife cheats on me, I go blank and everyone ends up dead… somehow, I get away with this? Unacceptable.

There will be more to come.

8

Hello F(R)IEND(S)

Here’s an idea… force other death row inmates to work… they will carry out these perverted sentences. :evilfun: When we run out of people to carry out the last of the sentences guess what:

  1. We have succeeded in reducing violent crime.
  2. I volunteer to chop the heads off the last few…
  3. If I go crazy, feel free to chop off me head.
  4. I’m sure someone will be able to handle this stress.

I think the work these guards did would be more worthwile if it wasn’t going to waste–I bet the pride would help ease the stress.

9

Those are some cheerful ideas.

What about the connection between crime, economics, and race though? If social situations have created breeding grounds for crime then what? How about hypocritical drug laws? Millions use drugs happily but the dealer gets a life sentence.

We would need a social overhaul before we could weed out the real sociopaths.

10

Thirst,

I cannot find the information that I posted regarding car thieves and their duration of time spent in prison. So I retract this point from my argument. But I feel that this does not necessarily detract from the validity of what I am proposing. As I know you agree with me.

So I still believe that punishments are too lenient in these United States of America. Any further thoughts, anyone…?

11

Crooked,

I can back you up in the sense that economic crimes do get longer sentences than some violent crimes. In some drug crimes they will weight the amount of drugs that you have and give you time based on that. I know a guy that never committed a crime before and got 125 years for having coke.
Also, hold-up guys can get 20 years a shot. So if you rob five places that 100 years. This is much less than most sex offenders get.

12 
While you may feel perfectly justified in the killing of innocents through a fault of the justice system, others may not be. This will certainly cause widespread uproar. How would you feel if you or some one you loved were an innocent victim of this kind of cold hearted 'justice,' it is easier to shout rhetoric when your own life is not on the line. If that is not a point you are willing to entertain, then try this, a penal system such as the one that you descibe would be abused by some group (a nice new way for the CIA or FBI to get rid of 'undesireables', or, if you're not into conspiracy theories, for an influential figure to frame an innocent person as a scape goat for their crime. In this type of system, it would be easier to have the innocent silenced before they made any real noise in prison)

The first option pretty much guarantees a further clogging of the ‘system’ as people who would have recieved a seven year sentence stay in for a quarter century. Gee, if I were locked up for twenty five years, I would have a pretty weak social life outside of the criminal scene, which is just asking for me to re-offend when I get out again. In other words, once you’re in, you’re toast.

Ok, so some of these people ARE real freaks, but some of it is due to traumatic events, chemical imbalance, etc. Those types of people need treatment and not just 'prison love'. Granted, I'm not saying, 'let's release all the rapists and child molesters out on the street if there's even the remote possibility of their actions being caused by a phycologically or pharaceutically treatable problem, simply, that the problem has so many variables that the issue becomes far more complex than you're giving it credit for. 

Yay! let's just get rid of the problem and turn a blind eye to the idea that there is an underlying reason for the accused's actions and the possibility of treatment. Once again, I'm not saying let's release everyone with anti-social personality disorder (aka a sociopath) with a criminal record just because she/he was mentally unstable at the time the crimes were commited, just that things are never black and white.

 Ok, I've got to say I agree this one entirely. After all, couldn't taking life (second degree) be considered temporary insanity? you don't just get an hour of severe chemical imbalance and the POOF! its gone. You're either have a psychological/physiological impairment or you're a man who, in a fit of rage/greif/etc, killed her, her lover, and whatever. Either way, you've got a reality, an unpleasant one, to face up to.

Those are my thoughts on the proposal, back to you boys (and girls of course).

13

i think it would reduce violent crime, but it will not reduce violent crime damages. essentially, now you get x crimes and y damages. with the eye for eye thing you’d get x > z > x/2 crime, and hence t > y damages.

14

zenofeller,

Forgive my ignorance, but what do variables t and z represent?

15

Hello F(r)iends,

When removing cancer you will inevitably remove a few good cells along with the cancerous cells. Should we allow the cancer to spread? Perhaps in a perfect world no innocent people would be punished–to parallel this, with the perfect technology we may be able to remove purely cancerous cells from the body but it is not realistic. It is unfortunate that some innocent people die… however, it would rarely happen. Basically, you can’t solve one problem without possibly creating another. The goal should be that the next problem is less difficult to solve or simply less costly.

Well the theory is that once enough people are locked up for such a lengthy period of time the reward for non-violent crimes are reduced. Thus, fewer criminals. In the early stages I imagine there would be population problems–then again repeat offenders should be executed freeing room for other criminals.

You are right. Reduce their sentences to 25 years with treatment. A repeat offender = death.

Bundy, Manson, Nightstalker Ramirez… these guys can be called insane. I say death. This is not turning a blind eye. It is perhaps the best solution. I am not certain that those labeled insane are entirely unable to differentiate between right and wrong, between real and unreal. Now, back to the ILP members… :slight_smile:

-Thirst4Justice

16

we know from the past that “eye for an eye” does not work.

so when they formed the US they tried forming a “fair” system that tried judging you on what you did and incarcerating you appropriately.

The problem is as you say Thirst, the repeat offenders, like Manson, or the nutcase who killed the family in the northwest raped the little girl and boy, and killed the boy savagely.

he’s not only a repeat offender, he escaped bail to commit this horrendous act.

So in essence I think there is a percentage of the population that no amount of jail time or rehabilitation is going to help, they are full on nuts. Their process of right and wrong is all screwed up.

17

In my view, there are economic crimes done mostly by poor people (robbery, drug dealing, etc.) and they should be dealt with differently than crimes committed by perverted people that enjoy hurting innocents for fun.

In court they sometimes add mitigating and aggravating circumstance to a crime and that affects the sentence. Even some sex offenders should get this treatment. I have met a couple of guys that got into trouble for statutory rape (they were 18 and their girlfriend was 16 or something like that) and do not meet the criteria for a “real” sex offender. People like that should get into trouble but not as much as the “perverted” torturer or predator. My point is that aggravating circumstances should get a person a life altering sentence.

18

Some of us have suggested that longer sentences would deter people from committing crimes. Perhaps instead of longer sentences we could reform the system to make the stay for the criminals even less pleasant. For instance, if your prison term were five years of bootcamp-style marching, running and other such physical strains, one would be far less eager to recommit or commit in the first place. Of course, there are some cons to this idea (no pun intended): a) any re-offenders would now be far more fit, b) some offenders would be unable to take the strain of prison(the 300lb guy with athsma for instance, then again ‘if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime’), c) this would really only be feasible for non- violent crimes (car theives, “enron scum”, etc) as murders and psychopaths are different kettles of fish on their own, and d) it doesn’t fix the problem of finding these people work/help to keep them ‘honest’ once they are released.

“Drop down and gimme twenty Martha!”

19

people don’t commit crimes with the intention of gettin caught. yes they know their are consequences if they do. harsher punishment would make them think twice before doing it but the justice system should handle each crime seperately and punish accordingly. I do believe there should be guidelines for each categorized crime but there are always exceptions to each category of crime. like adlerian said about the statuatory rape. that does don’t even qualify with the same punishment a child molester should get.

20

people don’t commit crimes with the intention of gettin caught. yes they know their are consequences if they do. harsher punishment would make them think twice before doing it but the justice system should handle each crime seperately and punish accordingly. I do believe there should be guidelines for each categorized crime but there are always exceptions to each category of crime. like adlerian said about the statuatory rape. that does don’t even qualify with the same punishment a child molester should get.