# A society with 1 law: An eye for an eye



## TheYellowMustang (Jul 29, 2013)

If you kill, you will be killed in the exact same way.

If you rape, you'll be raped.

If you accidentally hit someone with your car, you'll be hit with the same car at the same speed. Your injuries and possible death will come down to luck, but you'll have the same chances of survival as your victim did. 

Do you think there'd be less crime? Or wouldn't it have mattered? 

(working on a possible idea for a book/brainstorming)


----------



## WatcherOfSky (Jul 29, 2013)

Rape as a punishment? *thinks of what would happen*

uuuumm... just think about that and you might find the silliness of the rule. xD


And gangbang rape. D:


----------



## Kehawin (Jul 29, 2013)

I don't personally think there would be less crime - perhaps less premeditated crime...  There are those, in our society, that don't care even if the punishment is _more severe_ than the crime - for example, armed robbery.  Don't get me wrong, I would not want to be on the wrong end of a gun in a gas station, I am not saying that crime isn't awful.  But, in an "eye for an eye" situation, if the armed robber can get what they are after without having to fire the gun, well, what would his punishment be?  He would know that because he didn't fire his gun, then he is in no danger of being shot when he is being punished.

I don't know for sure, but I know there are some countries whose laws indicate that a robber has his hand cut off, etc.  You might look at the crime statistics in those countries for the crimes that involve the loss of body parts for an answer.  Just a suggestion.

When I saw your title, I instantly thought of the TV show "Sliders".  I don't know if it ever had an episode about this, but it had some pretty interesting explorations of alternate crime/punishment scenarios.  There was one that was, on the surface, Utopia.  There was no crime, everyone was happy and desired nothing.  One could go to an "ATM" and withdraw however much money one desired, no deposit required.  The catch?  Every dollar withdrawn was another entry of your name into "The Lottery".  Every so often (each year?  quarter?)  a name was drawn randomly from the entries.  That person then had 24 hours to live.  It was their answer to crime, poverty, and population control.

Anyway, not trying to hijack your thread, just thought I would give you some more food for thought.


----------



## Govinda (Jul 29, 2013)

It's an interesting thought exercise and I would be lying if I said that it's not something that has occurred to me with passionate fervor during a couple of real life situations, but...

Would your proposed eye for an eye culture have a legal system?  Would there be due process?  I ask honestly and without irony in order to better ponder my take on your proposal.  range:


----------



## Charlaux (Jul 29, 2013)

What sort of person would be willing to enforce these laws?

Not someone I'd want in law enforcement.


----------



## BreakingMyself (Jul 29, 2013)

In another country (I don't remember which) a man was attacked with an axe and was subsequently crippled. He later won a case in court to have his attacker surgically crippled.

We already execute murderers in some countries, I'd put rapists in the same boat, but we can always invent a mechanical 'rape-box'...

The problem is the cost involved, we hurt these people, cripple them, then they gain disability benefits for the remainder of their life as a result?


----------



## Jeko (Jul 29, 2013)

This has been done in an episode of Red Dwarf. It would never work in a society, but it's great for comedy.

Also a good idea for a horror story with a malevolent deity that enforces balance on the universe in such a way.


----------



## Govinda (Jul 29, 2013)

I think the validity of the system would also depend on how complex the society is making use of the system.

Simple, violent crimes might seem arguable, but what about white collar crime?  I steal a $1000 dollars from you, invest it, make money off of it, eventually get caught for my crime and pay the penalty of having $1000 stolen from me.  I still win because I have a net gain.  The punishment really doesn't hurt me when I know and calculate that cost into my endeavor.  I haven't really been punished, it's just a calculated ROI (return on investment).


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Jul 29, 2013)

WatcherOfSky said:


> Rape as a punishment? *thinks of what would happen*
> 
> uuuumm... just think about that and you might find the silliness of the rule. xD
> 
> ...




I have thought about it actually. It would be twisted and messed up, but it's not impossible. There'd have to be volunteers who are actually paid to rape rapists, and it would have to be supervised to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. Yup. Twisted and messed up.


----------



## Blade (Jul 29, 2013)

Charlaux said:


> What sort of person would be willing to enforce these laws?
> 
> Not someone I'd want in law enforcement.


:icon_bounce:



TheYellowMustang said:


> If you accidentally hit someone with your car, you'll be hit with the same car at the same speed. Your injuries and possible death will come down to luck, but you'll have the same chances of survival as your victim did.



This would be especially difficult and expensive to carry out. Can you imagine the $$$ that would go down the drain when lawyers got a hold of it?:grief: I think punishment has to be funneled into some simplified mode in order to be applied without undue mayhem.:cool2:


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Jul 29, 2013)

Kehawin said:


> I don't personally think there would be less crime - perhaps less premeditated crime... There are those, in our society, that don't care even if the punishment is _more severe_ than the crime - for example, armed robbery. Don't get me wrong, I would not want to be on the wrong end of a gun in a gas station, I am not saying that crime isn't awful. But, in an "eye for an eye" situation, if the armed robber can get what they are after without having to fire the gun, well, what would his punishment be? He would know that because he didn't fire his gun, then he is in no danger of being shot when he is being punished.



I'm not so sure either. I feel like if you are in a situation where you want to kill someone (truly and honestly), punishment isn't a deciding factor. 

Armed robbery is a tricky one... First, you'd get a fine of the exact amount of money that you stole. Other than that, what have you done? You have pointed a gun at someone, making that person scared for his/her life. So, how many armed robberies end in death? Say it's 1/6. You'll be placed in a store at night and they'll send in a man with a gun. In his gun there is 1 bullet. He pulls the trigger, and you'll have a 1/6 chance of being shot. That's the closest to "an eye for an eye" i could think of. 

Sliders sounds really fascinating. Is it a good show? If yes, I'll definitely give it a try.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Jul 29, 2013)

Wreybies said:


> It's an interesting thought exercise and I would be lying if I said that it's not something that has occurred to me with passionate fervor during a couple of real life situations, but...
> 
> Would your proposed eye for an eye culture have a legal system? Would there be due process? I ask honestly and without irony in order to better ponder my take on your proposal. range:



Of course. There's be lawyers and judges and police, but the discussion wouldn't be "how many years", it would simply be "did he/she do it or not". If yes, the punishment is a reflection of what you did. There would be due process, you'd have legal rights. The big difference is the punishments.


----------



## OurJud (Jul 29, 2013)

Fast forward the clip to 5:20 

[video=youtube;B36z4cUErAs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B36z4cUErAs[/video]

The only thing an 'eye for an eye' justice system would do, would be to make the world a far uglier place that it is already.

The very thought just terrifies me, but you have also hit upon a great idea for a sci-fi/futuristic society story  *

Can I steal it, please? *



* Oops, I missed your bracketed sentence at the end.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Jul 29, 2013)

Wreybies said:


> I think the validity of the system would also depend on how complex the society is making use of the system.
> 
> Simple, violent crimes might seem arguable, but what about white collar crime? I steal a $1000 dollars from you, invest it, make money off of it, eventually get caught for my crime and pay the penalty of having $1000 stolen from me. I still win because I have a net gain. The punishment really doesn't hurt me when I know and calculate that cost into my endeavor. I haven't really been punished, it's just a calculated ROI (return on investment).



It could be done in two ways. Either you'd have to pay back the exact amount or we'd have to calculate how much damage was really done. Say 1000 dollars is 10% of everything I own and you steal it from me. Then 10% of everything you own will be stolen from you.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Jul 29, 2013)

OurJud said:


> The only thing an 'eye for an eye' justice system would do, would be to make the world a far uglier place that it is already.
> 
> The very thought just terrifies me, but you have also hit upon a great idea for a sci-fi/futuristic society story  *
> 
> ...




Of course you can! I'm sure it's been done before, and if we both end up writing about it I'm sure the stories would be entirely different anyways


----------



## Govinda (Jul 29, 2013)

TheYellowMustang said:


> It could be done in two ways. Either you'd have to pay back the exact amount or we'd have to calculate how much damage was really done. Say 1000 dollars is 10% of everything I own and you steal it from me. Then 10% of everything you own will be stolen from you.



Clever, clever!    I like this thread.  It's real actual brainstorming!  

Ok, how about this:  Slander and Defamation would run into a paradox, it would seem.  These are difficult enough problems to deal with in current legal systems because of the human habit of hazing the line between fact and opinion (particularly popular opinion).  The paradigm of either crime is that the injury is caused by *false* statements that damage a person's credibility or personal character.  If one is found guilty of such a crime, then the punishment would be understood and accepted as a lie about the guilty party; thus, how would that cause an equitable injury to the guilty party?  No one would believe the punishment the way the original injury was believed.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Jul 29, 2013)

Wreybies said:


> Clever, clever!  I like this thread. It's real actual brainstorming!
> 
> Ok, how about this: Slander and Defamation would run into a paradox, it would seem. These are difficult enough problems to deal with in current legal systems because of the human habit of hazing the line between fact and opinion (particularly popular opinion). The paradigm of either crime is that the injury is caused by *false* statements that damage a person's credibility or personal character. If one is found guilty of such a crime, then the punishment would be understood and accepted as a lie about the guilty party; thus, how would that cause an equitable injury to the guilty party? No one would believe the punishment the way the original injury was believed.



That's a tough one. I guess the headline "*firstname + lastname* made false statements about Coca Cola and their product" would be quite embarrassing, but what newspaper would bother writing that? I guess there could be something like a website dedicated to picturing these people, show their names and say what either person has lied about. In my version of this society, there are NO exceptions to the rule, so prison or fine is out of the question. 

Let's look at the damage that has been done: the reputation of a business, person or group (etc) has been damaged with a lie. So... I guess the same needs to be done to you... But it's tricky, because to make that happen then the media would have to make up an embarrassing lie about you, which would mean the media can't be trusted...


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jul 29, 2013)

What if a woman cuts a man's pride off? What would be done to her?


----------



## Sam (Jul 29, 2013)

TheYellowMustang said:


> If you kill, you will be killed in the exact same way.
> 
> If you rape, you'll be raped.
> 
> ...



The premise is flawed because your reciprocal punishment presupposes that the severity (or lack thereof) of the original punishment can be accurately recreated. If one person rapes someone, the victim will be scarred for life and have to deal with the trauma. If the perpetrator is then raped by someone with AIDS or another sexually transmitted disease, it's a different punishment that has similar trauma but a vastly dissimilar outcome. 

Furthermore, none of your crimes could ever be recreated in an identical way. The damage inflicted by two cars travelling at the same speed is predicated on a number of outside factors. The size, build, and weight of the target; the point of impact; the inertia of the victims' flight; the velocity of the collision with the ground; and the material of the ground itself. A large person would not have the same chance of survival as a smaller one, owing to their body mass and overall condition. 

If you shoot someone in the head to kill them, and you then are shot in the head as reciprocal punishment, the bullet might not kill you but instead leave you in a vegetative state. That's arguably a worse punishment than death. So, for that reason, an eye for an eye could never work, in my opinion.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Jul 29, 2013)

Bruno Spatola said:


> What if a woman cuts a man's pride off? What would be done to her?



Damage done: No sexual pleasure, hormonal imbalance (I think), loss of ability to reproduce and possibly pain (depending on whether or not she made him unconscious first). The same damage would be done to her, at least in the way I imagine this f'ed up system. I guess, by this logic, the punishment would be removal of the clitoris and uterus.


----------



## Govinda (Jul 29, 2013)

Sam said:


> The premise is flawed because your reciprocal punishment presupposes that the severity (or lack thereof) of the original punishment can be accurately recreated....



While this is obviously true, it doesn't mean it wouldn't happen or be put into practice by a culture.  Witch hunting operated under the paradigm of "If she's accused of witchcraft, try to drown her.  If she doesn't drown, she's a witch, burn her.  If she does drown, God knows we are acting for the betterment of mankind.  He will forgive us and compensate her in heaven for our mistake."  An _insanely_ flawed train of logic, but one which was actually put into practice for a goodly while.


----------



## Pandora (Jul 29, 2013)

An eye for an eye implies the person doing the hurting can control themselves, can be compassionate, 
has empathy, understands consequence and will learn not to hurt others 
because they will endure the same. That takes connecting the dots.
Unfortunately this wouldn't work because many people who hurt others don't give a damn 
about others or themselves. Many learned to be as they are from small on. 
Reminds me of a poem I wrote, No One Came. 
We don't come here evil we are made so. And then there is the fact that some people need real help 
that they never get. Our society is good at failing it's people. We are good at looking the other way.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Jul 29, 2013)

Sam said:


> The premise is flawed because your reciprocal punishment presupposes that the severity (or lack thereof) of the original punishment can be accurately recreated. If one person rapes someone, the victim will be scarred for life and have to deal with the trauma. If the perpetrator is then raped by someone with AIDS or another sexually transmitted disease, it's a different punishment that has similar trauma but a vastly dissimilar outcome.
> 
> Furthermore, none of your crimes could ever be recreated in an identical way. The damage inflicted by two cars travelling at the same speed is predicated on a number of outside factors. The size, build, and weight of the target; the point of impact; the inertia of the victims' flight; the velocity of the collision with the ground; and the material of the ground itself. A large person would not have the same chance of survival as a smaller one, owing to their body mass and overall condition.
> 
> If you shoot someone in the head to kill them, and you then are shot in the head as reciprocal punishment, the bullet might not kill you but instead leave you in a vegetative state. That's arguably a worse punishment than death. So, for that reason, an eye for an eye could never work, in my opinion.



Of course the punishment would never be a 100% perfect reflection of the crime. If you shoot someone in the head and you're shot in the head yourself, the idea is not to cause the exact same amount of damage, but to create a situation where you have the same chances of dying or suffering from brain damage as your victim did, or as close to an equal chance as is possible. That would have to be the main intent behind such punishments.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jul 29, 2013)

I think it's a cool idea. Whether crime would go down: probably, in some places. It doesn't make sense to me, but lots of laws don't. If the world you're imagining where this system is in place is a bit topsy-turvy, you could get away with it. The laws in _1984_ don't make sense, but crime is drastically reduced in that.

You can do whatever you like, really. If crime goes down, it goes down, because you wrote it. Good luck.


----------



## Govinda (Jul 29, 2013)

Frankly, I think the flaws in the premise are where the meat is for a good story coming out of this idea.


----------



## Lewdog (Jul 29, 2013)

Basically this is what the first code of laws was like, not exactly but sort of, the Code of Hammurabi.  It's an interesting thought, much like the thought of the movie _The Purge_, where one day a year everyone can do whatever they want with absolutely no laws so they can get it out of their system.


----------



## Sam (Jul 29, 2013)

TheYellowMustang said:


> Of course the punishment would never be a 100% perfect reflection of the crime. If you shoot someone in the head and you're shot in the head yourself, the idea is not to cause the exact same amount of damage, but to create a situation where you have the same chances of dying or suffering from brain damage as your victim did, or as close to an equal chance as is possible. That would have to be the main intent behind such punishments.



No two people are identical. Sure, a gunshot to the head results in a fatality about 98% of the time, but that 2% is still a variable for which you have no control. That's the problem with the notion of eye for an eye. At what level of crime do you draw the line? If someone steps on your toe, and you put your stiletto through theirs, is that the same suffering that your aggressor inflicted on you? If I punch someone in the stomach, and they punch me in return, breaking a number of ribs and leaving me with internal bleeding, is that justified? 

The law enforcement system as it exists eschews eye-for-an-eye justice because there is too much wiggle room which would invariably invite more crime.


----------



## Sjonak (Jul 29, 2013)

Would there be less crime? I'd say no, in accordance with today's definition of crime.

Illegally activity, being mirrored by the similar illegal activity. Crime is illegal activity, and taking all crime and multiplying it in hopes no one is wrongly accused would bring our justice system to a brutal state.

One could say that the reciprocated illegal activity under this system would no longer be considered illegal activity, but accepting this would be a form of ignorance and would alter what is considered illegal. And altering what is considered illegal causes the meaning of crime to be transformed, which would result in making the question "would there be less crime?" less relevant if the system took effect. You'd be answering a new/different question. 

Goodluck on your story!


----------



## Lewdog (Jul 29, 2013)

Sorry to add to something I already said, the Code of Hammurabi mentions the idea of an eye for an eye even before the Bible does.

Code of Hammurabi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## FleshEater (Jul 29, 2013)

This is definitely an interesting idea, but I'm not sure if crime would decrease or increase. In the U.S. we already have tens of thousands of crimes unsolved. Also, what happens when someone that's innocent is convicted in your system? 

In the U.S. our crime would drop if there were more executions, and more crimes punished to the extent they're sentenced. Of course, when I watch Gangland, I always find myself saying, "They should line anyone up with a gang tattoo and execute them on the street." Why bother with politics? They just mess everything up when it comes to stopping large crime syndicates in the U.S. and the prison system only helps to strengthen crime. 

Thinking about this more, obviously every system has major flaws, so I don't see why this fictional idea couldn't be put in place to drive a plot.


----------



## Kehawin (Jul 29, 2013)

TheYellowMustang said:


> Sliders sounds really fascinating. Is it a good show? If yes, I'll definitely give it a try.


I personally loved that show, but it is no longer on the air, it ran its course.  It was on mid90s, on SciFi channel.  I know it can still be found on Netflix, but I see you aren't in America so I don't know if you get Netflix.  Certainly worth looking into if you can find it, though, so many ideas in that show that would make excellent basis for alternate societies!


----------



## Lewdog (Jul 29, 2013)

Kehawin said:


> I personally loved that show, but it is no longer on the air, it ran its course.  It was on mid90s, on SciFi channel.  I know it can still be found on Netflix, but I see you aren't in America so I don't know if you get Netflix.  Certainly worth looking into if you can find it, though, so many ideas in that show that would make excellent basis for alternate societies!




I thought Sliders was originally a Fox show.  It's what got Jerry O'Connell back in the audience's eyes.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Jul 29, 2013)

Sam said:


> No two people are identical. Sure, a gunshot to the head results in a fatality about 98% of the time, but that 2% is still a variable for which you have no control. That's the problem with the notion of eye for an eye. At what level of crime do you draw the line? If someone steps on your toe, and you put your stiletto through theirs, is that the same suffering that your aggressor inflicted on you? If I punch someone in the stomach, and they punch me in return, breaking a number of ribs and leaving me with internal bleeding, is that justified?
> 
> The law enforcement system as it exists eschews eye-for-an-eye justice because there is too much wiggle room which would invariably invite more crime.



Well your first example isn't that relevant considering stepping on someone's toe isn't a crime. But if you punch someone in the stomach you do risk breaking their ribs and leaving them with internal damage, so yes, if that was reported you'd be punched with the same amount of force which could very well leave you with more injuries than the person you punched. But in my mind, the idea is that you risked hurting them just as much as you were or weren't hurt when you were punished. 

For example, say you punch someone and they fall, hit their head on the curb and die. Would you be executed? No. You'd be punched at the same street corner, with the same amount of force and with the same chances of hitting your head and dying. 

I should mention this isn't something I've started working on at all, it was just something I wanted to discuss because I love brainstorming, and it is something I'd consider writing about if I come up with a plot that could be a good match for such a setting.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jul 29, 2013)

TheYellowMustang said:


> Well your first example isn't that relevant considering stepping on someone's toe isn't a crime. But if you punch someone in the stomach you do risk breaking their ribs and leaving them with internal damage, so yes, if that was reported you'd be punched with the same amount of force which could very well leave you with more injuries than the person you punched. But in my mind, the idea is that you risked hurting them just as much as you were or weren't hurt when you were punished.
> 
> For example, say you punch someone and they fall, hit their head on the curb and die. Would you be executed? No. You'd be punched at the same street corner, with the same amount of force and with the same chances of hitting your head and dying.
> 
> I should mention this isn't something I've started working on at all, it was just something I wanted to discuss because I love brainstorming, and it is something I'd consider writing about if I come up with a plot that could be a good match for such a setting.



Ancient Israel tried the law of the talon.  It became a problem because if Levi kills Malachai, then Malachai's brother kills Levi (oops, Levi's death was more painful than Malachai's - was it intentional?), then Levi's brother kills Malachai's brother (oops, Malachai's brother had a baby daughter who can't be provided for now, so the deaths weren't equal), so Malachai's cousin kills Levi's brother, etc.

This became a huge problem.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Jul 29, 2013)

Sjonak said:


> Illegally activity, being mirrored by the similar illegal activity. Crime is illegal activity, and taking all crime and multiplying it in hopes no one is wrongly accused would bring our justice system to a brutal state.



That's actually what fascinates me about the idea! Just imagining how horrible and brutal that world would be. I'd never even consider it as a good idea in reality. I imagine there'd have to be some kind of uproar towards the end.


----------



## Omi (Jul 29, 2013)

Jack Ketchum wrote a short story based on this idea called To Suit The Crime. It's found in his anthology Peaceful Kingdom. A very good read.

How would this system deal with accidental deaths? Stage an accident like the one that happened? Why then it's not an accident, it's intentional and therefore a crime and you'd have to punish the punisher.

If a man is exonerated of murder after he's been killed for the crime, what then? Who's punished for the crime of murdering an innocent?

If a woman is assisted in her voluntary suicide, who is punished? If the assistant is punished then how to punish him? Make him want to commit suicide?  How and does forced suicide count as a murder?


----------



## Robert_S (Jul 29, 2013)

The problem is that the legal system is not and never will be perfect. Biases, prejudices and human error are a factor in every single court case that is heard. You cannot separate the human from the being.

It is for this reason, I am against the death penalty. People have been executed for crimes they didn't commit and it will happen again.


----------



## Blade (Jul 29, 2013)

Robert_S said:


> The problem is that the legal system is not and never will be perfect. Biases, prejudices and human error are a factor in every single court case that is heard. You cannot separate the human from the being.
> 
> It is for this reason, I am against the death penalty. People have been executed for crimes they didn't commit and it will happen again.



That is exactly the primary argument against the death penalty and it is slowly taking hold around the world, I think. 

What is really needed is a close public examination of some of the errant convictions to let people see just how things can go awry.:sunny:


----------



## FleshEater (Jul 29, 2013)

I could see dropping the death penalty if sentences were carried out. Also, if people weren't incarcerated for simple drug charges, filling our prisons and sucking up tax funds. However, the U.S. is so full of crime it isn't funny. So there's really no fixing anything.


----------



## justanothernickname (Jul 29, 2013)

Karma is real............and Karma's gonna get you 

Just summing the thread up nice and neat like


----------



## Omi (Jul 29, 2013)

The current Criminal Justice system in America is flawed out da bum, no denying but I don't believe it's beyond repair; it's just that repair in this case means: 'total, difficult and expensive overhaul of existing criminal laws and procedures, restructuring of prison systems and progression of society on a big scale'.


----------



## FleshEater (Jul 30, 2013)

Omi said:


> The current Criminal Justice system in America is flawed out da bum, no denying but I don't believe it's beyond repair; it's just that repair in this case means: 'total, difficult and expensive overhaul of existing criminal laws and procedures, restructuring of prison systems and progression of society on a big scale'.



This is true. Too bad it's a bankrupt country .


----------

