Eye for an eye
If someone had told me I would take such lengthy gaps from blogging on this platform, I would have my doubts, but right now it is occurring and it is because of my busy academic schedule.
I believe that spacing out posts by two days rather than just taking a few days off would be preferable. Because writing demands constancy, if you aren't constant you won't feel like writing.
I mentioned downloading a prompt e-book in my earlier post to make writing on this site more convenient. I'll go right to today's prompt or topic
"'Is an eye for an eye a good basis for determining an appropriate punishment? Why or why not? Use specific reasons and examples to explain your position."
What is "eye for an eye"
For those who are unfamiliar with the concept of "eye for an eye," I would want to provide some brief explanations in this article.
The Old Testament portion of the Bible contains several ancient laws, including the principle of "an eye for an eye," which is being practiced in some parts of the globe today. It is a judicial system in which each person receives an equal or comparable penalty for the wrongs they have committed.
An "eye for an eye" belief states that the murderer must be put to death for justice to be done.
The regulation intends to deter criminal activity since anybody who violates it would be punished to the same extent as the offense they committed, if not to a greater extent.
This rule was primarily employed in ancient Israel and other regions of the world, and it is still in use in some Islamic nations today. Under this law, the severity of the offense committed by the offender is used to determine how severely the offender would be punished.
Is it still appropriate?
Is a law like that still appropriate to apply, though? Is it a reliable foundation for choosing punishment, especially in the present?
Well, in my opinion, the "an eye for an eye" legislation should no longer be in effect since it is out of date and will not function well in our contemporary society.
Nowadays there are numerous crimes that weren't done many years before, and many of these crimes are, according to research, the outcome of someone having a mentally or psychologically disturbed person.
For example
How would you fine a person who violates traffic rule in a land that practice "eye for an eye" law?
Even while the law might be able to stop certain terrible crimes, it won't be able to stop some less serious but nevertheless important crimes that might occur in society.
Criticism of the law
Coretta Scott King, the wife of renowned African-American leader Martin Luther King Jr., was one of the fiercest critics of the "eye for an eye" legislation.
The traditional rule of "an eye for an eye" "makes everyone blind," she stated, and I quote.
I concur with her because if everyone who steals had their hands amputated, a lot of people would be walking around with only one hand. I think the current prison system is much superior to the "eye for an eye" principle.
I've also heard of people who were imprisoned for crimes they had committed and later emerged as better people who had contributed significantly to society.
The prison system is better
Because prison is a system that should be used to correct wrongdoing, many nations today have outlawed the death penalty for all criminals, including murderers.
According to a BBC article I read about prisoners who were taught how to sew and make clothes and who earn and send them to their families, such a program shows those who are imprisoned can be useful.
You can read the BBC's article titled "The fashion labels whose clothing is made by prisoners."
30-10-2022
6:00 PM
Thanks for reading!
Author's links
good article