I have always thought it interesting that most people use "an eye for an eye" to justify extreme punishment or retribution. A careful reading of the relevant passage shows that the intention was that 'no more than an eye as punishment for the loss of an eye.' That is, the punishment should never be more severe than the crime, and was meant to deter sentences like death for thievery.
I have always thought it interesting that most people use "an eye for an eye" to justify extreme punishment or retribution. A careful reading of the relevant passage shows that the intention was that 'no more than an eye as punishment for the loss of an eye.' That is, the punishment should never be more severe than the crime, and was meant to deter sentences like death for thievery.
ReplyDelete