An Eye For An Eye: Moral Proportionality Analysis

Often, when a criminal is sentenced to the death penalty for committing a murder, people begin to question the legality and morality of it, and try to defend or attack it. One of the first few things that come to mind when people try to defend the death penalty is the statement, “an eye for an eye,” or the principle of lex talionis, meaning we treat people the way they have treated others (Textbook, 538). Although this argument is well-backed up, it does not always prove to be the best principle when determining the type of punishment, one deserves. Stephen Nathanson, an abolitionist to the death penalty, discusses this idea in his article “An Eye for and Eye,” specifically within his argument stating that equality retributivism does not justify the death penalty and that it should be rejected (Textbook, 539). Equality retributivism, which is the idea that we penalize criminals with punishments that are equal to their crimes, serves as a great principle for some crimes but not all. I find this statement, along with Nathanson’s argument, to be true because not all crimes can have a punishment equal to it. Throughout this paper, I will discuss Nathanson’s argument, some objections raised, and lastly, whether the objection succeeds or not.

A very simple, yet popular and long-standing goal of sentencing is retribution. Criminals are punished according to their crime because they deserve punishment. The idea that a certain crime equals a certain punishment is very simple and could

1. Lex Talionis – The Criminal Justice Today textbook defines the term Lex Talionis as “The law of retaliation, often expressed as ‘an eye for an eye’ or ‘like for like’” (Schmalleger 414). Under Lex Talionis, the convicted offender was sentenced to suffer a punishment that closely approximated the original injury. This rule of “an eye for an eye, a tooth of a tooth,” generally duplicated the offense. Hence, if a person blinded another, he was blinded in return. Murderers were executed, sometimes in a way tailored to approximate the method they had used in committing the crime. It is ultimately the principle of retributive justice expressed in the phrase “an eye for an eye,” and the basis of this form of law is the principle of proportionate

Since the dawn of the age of technology, humanity has made massive progress in the study of the human brain. Specifically, humanity’s new technology has led to revelations about the way the brain functions, and continues to discover the neurophysical reasoning behind human actions. These new discoveries continue to disprove previous theories, and have now begun to affect the way society views and perceive criminal law and the way it operates. In his book Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain, David Eagleman argues that there is a deep problem regarding how we think about whether it makes sense to blame people for their actions. Eagle argues that, in light of recent technological medical advancements, the existence of free will is beginning to seem highly improbable, and that both simple and complex actions can be traced back to their neuroscientific basis, without first bypassing the conscious mind. In this paper, I will argue that the theory and reconsideration proposed by Eagleman is, in fact, accurate, and a highly probable proposition for the future of the legal system.

Eagleman suggests that determining a person’s motivation for committing the crime rather than just using blame is the way to go. The primary issue is that neuroscience can explain why each person thought the way they did when committing a crime, but instead it is simply judged by the severity of the situation. Eagleman proposes that criminals get neurological help based on their crime rather than punished. Certain punishments for hooligans are not enough to stop them from doing the crime once again. If these people were to receive help, it may be more beneficial for them and help them more psychologically than being thrown into a jail cell.

In the argument for the death penalty, we take a look at “lex talionis”, the eye for an eye principle. Humans deserve praise for good deeds, and punishment for bad ones. This punishment could arguably range from the harshness of death, to a smack on the head, but in either example, the punishment must fit the crime. The eye for an eye principle ensures that no matter the crime, there is a just and understood punishment for all people. If we take the lex talion literally, and the criminals do deserve those punishments, but in turn, we must be prepared to deliver those punishments. Executing murderers prevents them from committing their crime again, and thus protects innocent victims. However, punishment does not apply itself to the culprit after

1. Lex talionis is defined as “law of retaliation” (Clear 32). According the Code of Hammurabi, from ancient Babylon, the basis for punishment was retaliation. This idea was known as lex talionis. The principles of lex talionis can be described using the idea of “an eye for an eye” or “a tooth for a tooth.” Not only does the principle of lex talionis say that the punishment should be proportional to the crime, but it also suggests that the method of punishment should be the same as that of the crime. I think the term lex talionis can be related to present day corrections in that it is an extreme way to say that the punishment should be proportional, to. or "fit," the offense. For example, if a person is convicted of rape, that person should face extensive jail time, not just be sentenced to 300 hours of community service and a

The death penalty has been present, in one way or another, for virtually as long as human civilization has existed. The reasons why are apparent; it is intrinsically logical to human beings that a person who takes the life of another should also be killed. This philosophy is exemplified in the famous Biblical passage, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." However, in light of recent research into ethics, criminology and the justice system, the time has come for us to re-examine our ageless paradigm of revenge.

Punishment is defined as “the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense” (“Punishment”). Some prominent theories of punishment include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the moral education theory. Although retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation are all crucial components of punishment justification, independently the theories have weaknesses that avert the moral rationalization of punishment. I believe that Jean Hampton’s moral education theory is the best justification for punishment because it yields the most sympathetic and prudent reasons for punishment, while simultaneously showing that punishment cannot be justified by solely

Over the years there have been several research reports on crime victim’s desire for revenge towards their offenders. This research experiment will be evolving the information that is needed on the differences of opinions concerning achieving revenge between the comparison groups of non-victims of crime and victims of crime. This research experiment will be conducting tests between an sample group of two hundred and four people from British Columbia, one hundred and two of the sample group will be male and the other half will be females. Half of each experiment group will be unemployed and employed; one third will be reported victims of crime, one third will be non-reported victims of crime and on third will be non-victims of crime. The expected

It is then that first, the core of retribution that is “lex talionis” does not translate into proper criminal punishment. This is because the moral equivalence that the criminal justice system sets out to inflict is one of moral harm rather than physical harm. The object of any sentence is to separate the convicted in a way that allows them to be rehabilitated. The object of retribution that follows archaic traditions of

In this article, the link between pleasure and aggression dealing with people’s choices and judgement are studied. The two groups of people are being used to test and influence the hypothesis in this article. According to Alvarado and Ramirez (2014), the two groups were of similar age, young delinquents and normal university students. One of the groups studied, showed more violence or bad behavior, while the other population is considered normal. The overall goal of the experiment is to evaluate whether the connection between pleasure and aggression and decision making primes a fixed or dissonant behavior (Alvarado & Ramirez; 2014). This testing was a voluntary unpaid experiment for participants and was completely anonymous. The ages used in the groups were very parallel, the felons mean age was 17.06 and the university student’s age had a mean of 20.56 (Alvarado & Ramirez; 2014). There isn’t a huge difference between ages in this study. The participants also came from a very similar area. The experiment included a total of 318 test subjects, with 48 percent consisting of males and 52% consisting of females. The 48% of males was equivalent to 177 young delinquents with an assortment of crimes under their belt, and 141 of the university students were compared to the delinquent group with normal aggression and no history of crime (Alvarado & Ramirez; 2014).

It should be noted however that the classical school of thought has had an enduring influence as many legal systems are built on some of its key precepts. The idea of intent for example, emphasizes the importance of the state of mind of the individual and their capacity for making choices. Notions of proportionality in relation to punishment are

Four major issues in capital punishment are debated, most aspects of which were touched upon by Seton Hall’s panel discussion on the death penalty. The first issue stands as deterrence. A major purpose of criminal punishment is to conclude future criminal conduct. The deterrence theory suggests that a rational person will avoid criminal behavior if the severity of the punishment outweighs the benefits of the illegal conduct. It is believed that fear of death “deters” people from committing a crime. Most criminals would think twice before committing murder if they knew their own lives were at stake. When attached to certain crimes, the penalty of death exerts a positive moral influence, placing a stigma on certain crimes like manslaughter, which results in attitudes of horror to such acts.

Theories of why we punish offenders are crucial to the understanding of criminal law; in fact it is not easy to define legal punishment, however one thing is clear within the different theories of punishment is that they all require justification.[1] There are many theories of punishment yet they are predominantly broken down into two main categories. The utilitarian theory seeks to punish offenders to discourage, or “deter,” future wrong doing. The retributive theory seeks to punish offenders because they deserve to be punished due to their behaviour upsetting the balance of society[2].