[ad_1]
The “an eye for an eye” principle is based on the belief that punishment must be equal to the crime and applied to the victim. It is commonly used in legal systems to establish fair punishments for certain crimes, with the beneficiary being the person who was wronged. Modern law recognizes intangible harms and includes them in just compensation.
“An eye for an eye” is a theory of punishment derived from a Bible verse. In essence, when a legal system uses this type of punishment, it is based on the belief that the punishment must be equal to the crime and applied to the victim. The simplest manifestation of the “an eye for an eye” principle is retaliation after an attack, applied in such a way that the original attacker must suffer the same damage he caused. More commonly, a value could be determined for the injuries sustained by the victim, and the aggressor could be obligated to pay the victim that amount. First, this only makes sense in the case of crimes that directly harm people, because more abstract crimes such as illegal drug use deserve no punishment in the most literal terms of this model.
Originally, the verse containing the words “an eye for an eye” was probably setting a theory of limits to revenge. According to this theory, revenge cannot degenerate into a greater punishment than the original crime. While this literal use of the phrase has more or less faded out of favour, it is still possible to see literal equal vengeance mediated through a legal system in some areas.
Most commonly, legal codes that operate on the principle prescribed by the “an eye for an eye” statement offer established fair punishments for certain crimes. A person who kills another person could be put to death, but a person who maims another person could have to pay a fine. It is possible that this principle applies not only to personal injury but also to loss of property, in which case the compensation needed is clearer. The beneficiary in these cases is always the person who was wronged or his relatives. This principle generally does not punish people for the public good.
The sentiment of an eye for an eye is echoed in many legal systems that do not explicitly use these words. Even countries that value rehabilitation and correction do not always stray far from this most basic sentiment in interpersonal aspects. When harm is done to a person and the courts decide that compensation must be made, it is almost universally accepted that compensation should be appropriate to the harm. One major difference in modern law is the recognition of many intangible harms, such as emotional, social, or psychological harms, which can be assessed and included in just compensation.
[ad_2]