An Eye for an Eye by, Kendall S.

“An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind”

-Mahatma Gandhi

Spanning ever since the dawn of civilization, the idea of “an eye for an eye” has been a pivotal factor in prosecuting criminals. This theory has been cited in works ranging from the Bible to modern fables and tales. Since childhood, we have all inadvertently been treasuring the idea of “treat others the way you want to be treated.” Somehow, humanity has evolved, but our view on the world hasn’t. Do ancient declarations really stand the test of time? These phrases are reminiscent of revenge, which is only an unruly act of vindictiveness, not to be confused with justice. Being an overused and dissolute term, “An eye for an eye” should be abandoned, despite its often, but vengeful use.

Still widely used in the US today, the death penalty is an, although controversial, often-used method of punishment. Despite its strong advocacy from prison officials, the death penalty often leaves an open wound for distraught victims. Society often seeks closure for victims of murders, thefts, and rapes, but it is difficult to deliver justice for many of these crimes. How exactly would you deliver an equal punishment for a burglary? It is a tough question, but the concept of “an eye for an eye” certainly would not deliver justice. We think we understand that to give a just punishment is to give an equal burden to the criminal, to give equal pain, and to give equal suffering, but is that not committing the crime itself? Primarily families of murder victims all over the U.S have shown discontent with the death penalty, an example of an “eye for an eye”. A University of Minnesota study showed that only 2.1% of victims finding closure with this event. It is simple enough to understand, killing someone that did you harm simply does not make most victims happy in today’s society. Wisely put by one victim included in the study, “Healing is a process, not an event.” Revenge, although tantalizing in one’s eye, often will not satisfy. The death penalty, a prime example of vengeful bloodlust, does not solve any problems, only hastily ends an issue that needed to be fixed with time. Revenge is unruly, emotional, and hatred-fueled, while justice is rational and restores balance. Justice has knocked the primitive need of revenge out of its place as culture and trials have evolved. Those who advocate for the death penalty and ‘an eye for an eye’ usually argue that it is purposeful in the way that the criminal can get a taste of their own medicine. When one thinks of a criminal, for the most part they think about a psychopath, a ruthless killer. This comes true for many prosecuted, as one death row inmate, anonymously named Bobby, simply said “Bye, im ready” as his last words. Delivering the death penalty, or initiating other “eye for an eye” punishments to criminals usually does not make them see that their acts are not justifiable, as usually they have gotten to such a low point in their life that they don’t seem to use empathy any longer.

‘To be fair’ is a concept that has become an epidemic in America, and it seems as there is no way of stopping it. We all know that things simply cannot be fair, but howling toddlers cannot seem to stop their “it's not fair!”scream. We use terms like ‘eye for an eye’ and ‘treat others the way you want to be treated’ so liberally, you come to question if as a society, do we provoke it? Wisely put in the words of Mark Banschick M.D, “...there are times that I think that the word "fair" is just another nasty four letter word. There is hurt in the notion of fair. Sometimes there is value in holding onto a sense of justice (that your world should be fair) and sometimes you must be adult enough to give it up.” We are advancing culture to be structured around fairness, not hard work. Movies, books, phrases, politics and the idea of justice are all intertwined with equality. Not to say racism, sexism, and hatred should be supported, but the demand for fairness is trickling down to banks and governmental offices in America. The idea of complete equality in government dates way back in a political structure Americans know all too well, communism. The downfall of the soviet union in 1991 proved Karl Marx’s theory a disaster, with countless Russians starving from his plan. The idea that the price can be adjusted by the producer is one of the most important concepts to ever be conceived, because that is what gives something value. Fairness, with its uncertain bounds, can drive a man insane, and get them caught up on the intangible and the unmeasurable. It is creating a whole new generation who don’t build themselves up, but just wait to get an even playing ground to others. Wouldn’t some ask: “Isn’t fairness what creates order in America?” This is true within the law, but when fairness is brought into communities and citizens start thinking that they are behind the 8 ball, hatred is fueled and the streets become disorderly. That is where the term “an eye for an eye” seems to come in, and people take on the role for revenge and disregard the justice system.

“An eye for an eye” is a term that takes punishments too far. Often unsatisfactory and vague, it can often spark an endless cycle of revenge. The human psyche has a thirst for revenge and for survival, and if it is unlawful, one will try to do it anyway. Why do we tend to want to do onto others what has been done to us? It is a question only philosophy could reply, but we will always know one thing, it is surely one of the deep mysteries of the human mind.

Works Cited

Banschick, Mark. “It's Not Fair! But Why Should It Be?” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 17 Oct. 2011, www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-intelligent-divorce/201110/its-not-fair-why-should-it-be.

“Goodbye, Warden.” Goodbye, Warden, www.goodbyewarden.com/#59.

Greaves, Bettina Bien. “Why Communism Failed.” FEE, Foundation for Economic Education, 1 Mar. 1991, fee.org/articles/why-communism-failed/.

Marsh, Jason. “Does Death Penalty Bring Closure?” CNN, Cable News Network, 20 May 2015, www.cnn.com/2015/05/20/opinions/marsh-tsarnaev-forgiveness/index.html.

Vollum, Scott. “Inequality and Discrimination.” University of Minnesota Duluth, University of Minnesota, Mar. 2014, www.d.umn.edu/external-affairs/homepage/14/deathisdifferent.htmlhttps://www.cnn.com/201.