CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Currently smoking marijuana is illegal. So that would mean that the law on that would be "A bowl for a bowl" so I could become a cop, catch people smoking weed and then their punishment would be to smoke me up.
My opinion is that it would. I feel criminals don't fear a cushy jail cell, where they are surrounded by their brothers in crime. What my mother used to do when I was younger was give me some form what I did to anyone else back, instead of simple grounding. So fights, got me spankings, stealing got my stuff taken (oh no, not my nintendo lol), among other things. The result was I feared what would happen to me for doing something to someone else, so I became a moderately good kid.
I believe an “eye for an eye” is a just method in approaching criminal affairs. After all, criminals who commit a crime rarely experience the tragic pain the victim or victims’ family have to endure. For example, one of my classmates was murdered; he was minding his business, and unfortunately got in the crossfire of a shooting. The person who murdered him was sentenced to life in prison without parole. Some experts, including Sen. John McCain claims, “[Prison] crushes your spirit and weakens your resistance more effectively than any other form of mistreatment.” However, any logical breathing individual can plainly see the fallacy in that- prison is supposed to be a rehabilitation center, in which inmates are incentivized to break and redefine their bad habits. Solitary confinement grants one the opportunity of an education, job, game room, television, shower, workout center, and three square meals a day until that inmate is let free or dies. Those benefits are more than what most Americans who are not felons receive today. An eye for an eye can serve to replace the flawed prison institution and exhibit a more aggressive and ethical approach. Society is nothing more than animals that need to be put in their place, which is why have rules and regulations. We are always being watched by elites and when one of us does something mischievous, then that individual needs to be the sacrificial lamb to set an example. In other words, a murderer should absolutely get murdered, unless that murder was in self-defense. If it wasn’t in self-defense, then the murderer should solely bear his/her own responsibility and accept the consequences. Ghandi said, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” but if we don’t take the necessary action and continue to slap the wrists of the careless, then the world is just going to close its eyes from all light because it will be easier to look at than the pain.
Works cited
"Gandhi Mahatma Quotes." Brainy Quote. (2011): n. page. Web..
Gawande, Atul. "The United States holds tens of thousands of inmates in long-term solitary confinement. Is this torture?." NewYorker. (2009): n. page. Web. .
Yes. I don't think that many people who commit crimes are afraid of jail. If they were, they wouldn't do it. Also, I don't think that sitting in jail can equal to a lifetime of pain they caused someone. It's only fair to punish people by doing to them exactly what they do to others. It doesn't make sense to make someone sit in a room as a punishment, it doesn't do much to them. It does stop them from doing it again, it does take away their freedom, but it doesn't cause the same pain they caused someone. And only that would be fair. Plus, it would make criminal offenses much rarer, since I'm sure rapists would think twice about doing what they do if they knew it was going to happen to them/their daughter/their mother.
Actually yes. I understand the question is supposed to be the 'wow factor' type, where no one should even consider it. Yet I actually agree this would be sound. If a rapist is violated I feel that knowing firsthand what, what they are doing to people feels like, that they'd stop.
The biggest, strongest black man with 6 inch diameter penis is always the best option. If that is not possible then machine with the all American challenge dildo would suffice. However, I feel it would be less effective because the element of surprise is nullified.
All right, but what if someone rapes two people. Do they get raped twice? And also, there is no way to set the circumstances to be exact.
Something else: What if you kill two different people? Then, the idea is you get killed, maybe in the same way you killed them. But what if you killed them in different ways? The idea of "Eye for an Eye" simply stops working after a point.
And something else to think about in the rape situation: How do you plan to rape them back? Hire someone? What if the original rapist fights back? Then are they punished for more crimes?
I see where you are coming from, but I don't really buy it.
What if the criminal was insane? What if he was defending himself? what if he was blackmailed? Every single factor is studied in the court of justice, my friend.
The philosophy of "An eye for an eye" isnt justice at all. But a judgement clouded by emotions
If they had probable cause then that would play into the 'eye for an eye' scenario. Man Slaughterers get a lighter sentence than murderers because of the reasoning behind it, I think this wouldn't change much in a court that did to the criminals what they did to their victim(s).
You are applying these what if situations to a case that would also be dealt with in a regular court.
What if a starving man stole from a store? In the current system he'd be either fined, banned from the store or imprisoned for a short while.
Not much would change in a system where criminals get close to what they do to victims done to them. Whatever he had would be taken, and most likely given to the store owner.
The thing is, my mother gave me a taste of what i was doing to others. I don't know what she would do if I sexually assaulted someone, but because I had my things taken, for taking other people's things, I couldn't even imagine what would happen if I were rape someone, therefore I'd never do it.
It doesn't really work
Do you know this doesn't work? Honestly if you do, that tidbit of information would be a great benefit to your argument, that up to now, has been nothing but an emotional appeal ground in no logic.
It...is very hypocritical.
What's wrong with hypocrisy? People would truly see that you can only combat wrong with wrong. What do you do if someone attacks you, do you take the hypocritical approach and attack them back to show them they shouldn't do that, or do you turn the other cheek as Jesus says you should?
If I fight someone who fights me it is not hypocritical unless the only reason I am fighting them is to show them that fighting is wrong.
Tell me now, how would you teach your child not to put their hand in a fire... Please do enlighten me...
By the way if my mother had done to me what your mother did to you, when I got in a fight at school, I'd fucking rage and maybe even lashed out at her (I don't think straight in my rage mode which is why I honestly think I am like Hulk). I don't care how hard my father would beat me afterwards, I'd run to my neighbours in the middle of the night and show them my wounds. I have no affection for any family or friends that could be considered unconditional and would, as a child, have left my family for good in the blink of an eye.
You might call me amoral and insane, I call myself a rational madman... A rogue rascal.
If you are doing something, you don't want done to you to get what's being done to you to stop, it's hypocritical.
If you want to stop something from being done to you, a non hypocrite, would do something different.
Gaining Equal Rights: Malcolm X was a hypocrite. Martin Luther King was not.
Military decisions: America is hypocritical for preventing Japan from having with our Military. We are hypocritical for using nuke threats to tell other countries they can't have nukes. If we used anything other than our military to stop Japan's we wouldn't be, if we used another form of weaponry to keep the nuke threats down we wouldn't be.
If you deem fighting as something you don't want done to you, but you do it to others, it is in every sense hypocritical. Yet the definition doesn't agree to that. Hmm?
I would never criminalise assault. I would instead allow a mad motherfucker to be beaten the fuck out of.
Mob justice works. The difference is they don't need uniforms and registration to do the right thing.
If you are going to brainwash me with your police propaganda don't, I have an extremely lawful uncle who would smack me for saying 'fuck the police' but he is also a genius of languages so I have some respect for him.
Yea, um. How is criminalizing assault then doing crimes to the criminals hypocritical?
It's known that they are wrong, we want to show them that they are wrong.
It's not like we are saying they are wrong, so we'll do better to them, but do the same thing.
As your definition states, if the moral standard has nothing to do what is actually going on, it's not hypocritical.
They would not being doing the crimes to the criminals and pretending like they are doing it for the greater good, they'd be doing the crimes to the criminals to literally show the criminals what what they did feels like.
i think governments should work harder to install ethical values in the population rather than overly scaring people into behaving, just a thought and probable impossible task
No. If society deteriorates to the level of the criminal, then we are over as a civilized society. Who is going to rape and sodomize child molesters? For example, if someone raped and sodomized my sister, to be truly fair, you would have to rape and sodomize the rapists sister. How would that be fair? Also where would you get the "decent" non-criminal members of society to perform these heinous acts? Would you volunteer to rape someone? I certainly wouldn't. There is no such thing as true eye for eye justice. It degrades humanity as a whole.
If your sister is raped, sorry to say it, but you are not the direct victim. If she is sexualy assaulted, her assailant would be sexualy assaulted, maybe by machine or something else uncomfortable.
It's not a literal exchange of exact punishment for crime, it'd be something similar to, or to get as close as possible to showing them what they did was wrong, first hand.
Tortures get tortured, serial killers also get tortured, parents who starve their children, get locked away and starved.
Where would you find someone to do these things? Machines require humans to maintain and operate them. Serial killers get tortured? What if they killed quickly? The point is, if we degrade ourselves as a society to the lowest of the low, then we are lost as humans.
There's always that thirst for complete justice, but it ends up being hypocritical. It's punishing people for committing a crime by committing that exact same crime.
