An Eye For An Eye?

What do you think? Is the ‘eye for an eye’ principle relevant in the modern world? Yesterday on Facebook, in relation to a posting I shared about an awful act of cruelty that was being reported in the world media a friend of mine referred to the ‘eye for an eye’ penalty, while wondering out loud whether or not such a response was ‘spiritual’. Here’s what I think (based on what I wrote for my Facebook page):

---

I generally agree with the 'an eye for an eye' principle. Sadly we live in an age of institutionalized leniency where murderers, rapists, animal abusers and other violent people receive paltry punishments for the crimes they commit. I disagree, for example with the quote attributed to Gandhi that says 'An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind'. I think, when taken to the extreme, as it so often is today this kind of institutionalized leniency means the courts turning a blind eye, in effect, to the severity of the crimes being committed and letting perpetrators off easily, which amounts to abusing the victims of crime a second time (this time by the courts, which are, supposedly, in place to protect the vulnerable and administer justice). I would vote for the death penalty for killers like Peter Sutcliffe (The Yorkshire Ripper), Fred and Rosemary West, Myra Hindley and Ian Brady (The Moors Murderers), etc, and, at the minimum, the birch for sex offenders and other perpetrators of violent crime. Personally I think, for example, the blood of every murder victim covers, to a degree, the hands of those who continue to put the 'rights' of the criminals above the genuine rights of the victims and above the safety of society as a whole... and the deep sense of violation that every rape victim feels stains the conscience of every 'do gooder' who, due to their moral lassitude and perverted values (criminals above victims) arguably encourage such crimes. (Where genuine repentance is clearly demonstrated then perhaps there is a case for some kind of mitigation.)

By the way, Elaine, I think that you are being spiritual by suggesting 'an eye for an eye'. I think it's not very spiritual at all to allow wicked violent people to continue in their nastiness practically unrestrained (I know for example that the police in England have said that the process of capturing criminals and bringing them before the courts is a bit like a revolving door: the police apprehend them... and the courts just let them right back out again, to continue in their criminality - the recidivism rate is very high). It does, I think, demonstrate moral courage to publicly address this issue, like you did.

What's more, the 'eye for an eye' principle is not vengeful. My understanding is that it ensures that a punishment which fits the crime is exacted, but that the level of punishment is limited to the severity of the crime. Therefore, 'an eye for an eye' restricts excessive penalties being applied. You know, while I wouldn't call myself a Christian in the commonly understood sense of the word (perhaps Jesus wouldn't call himself a Christian in this context either?) nevertheless I am an admirer of Jesus. The Jesus of history. He comes across as a very 'real' person. He was spiritual, fair and compassionate. But he wasn't a namby-pamby spiritual person. He overturned the tables of the money changers because they’d turned a place of worship into a money making exercise (sound familiar today?) and he could be rude when appropriate too (for example: calling some hypocritical people a 'brood of vipers'', which is perhaps the equivalent of addressing them today as a 'bunch of scumbags', or a ‘load of plonkers’?). What’s more, Jesus spoke out against the injustice of his time. He was active, not passive. Vocal, not retiring. Engaged in taking action, not sitting back and waiting for ‘someone else’ to ‘make a stand’. Jesus was a man of principle, not a sound-bite obsessed poseur. And he (bravely) spoke out against the unjust character of certain people in power. Which brings us to the subject of context, because, in the context of those people who extrapolate a position advocating institutionalized leniency based on a negative (erroneous in my opinion) assessment of the ‘an eye for an eye’ principle it’s vital to remember that context is vital when considering such important issues. For example, when a woman was brought before Jesus who (we are told) had committed adultery and a group of leading men wanted to stone her to death (like they do in Iran today), he exhorted the person amongst the group who was without sin to cast the first stone. Of course, no one did as no one present was 'without sin'. Jesus could see the unjust nature of the situation. Why, as was so often in the Judaic culture of his time, was the woman involved being sentenced to death? Where was the man with whom she had slept? Etc, etc. I wonder, though, would Jesus have responded in the same way had the equivalent of the Yorkshire Ripper been brought before him? I don't think so, yet some 'spiritual' people take one specific example, such as the case of the woman who was about to be stoned, and then generalize what they believe Jesus would do in all contexts from it. That’s unsound reasoning. And it misses, or misinterprets the context and the dynamics of what was taking place.

Let’s also consider the case where the Bible says Jesus stated: 'You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.' Some erudite writers on the subject of Christianity have stated that this perhaps refers to the then common situation in which employees/slaves would often be struck by their 'masters' and that, it was a wiser response to turn the other cheek than to strike back. In the same context going to court is addressed and being forced to go the extra mile, which involved a legal requirement that meant a Roman Centurion could compel anyone to carry their belongings for a mile. (Remember, the brutal Roman empire governed the land of Jesus’ time, and, to use a modern expression, ‘Resistance was futile’, all resistance was put down harshly... as happened not many years after Jesus' death in and around Jerusalem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70) ) Such examples as Jesus’ saying about turning the other cheek some experts suggest then cannot (should not?) be used to deduce that Jesus stated that pacifism is the correct response in all situations (Hitler?), or that murderers, rapists and other violent criminals should be 'let off', or worse, be practically allowed to carry on regardless, due to the leniency of the sentences meted out, as the rest of society simply ‘turns the other cheek’ so to speak, although some people seem to think that this is the case and this kind of thinking, arguably, has resulted in the mess we see today. Here's one book that is of possible interest to those who might want to look at Jesus from a potentially different perspective... http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Before-Christianity-Albert-Nolan/dp/1570754047 ...which might also present a different perspective to such issues as 'an eye for an eye'.

Oh... and by the way, whatever the 'argument' about what Jesus meant about turning the other cheek, it is important to remember that the context he highlighted was being struck on the cheek, not being raped or murdered. Remember, Jesus used to generalize too, so his comments ‘Do not resist an evil doer’ (which precede the 'turn the other cheek' remarks) I suggest should not be taken to apply to all circumstances involving ‘evil doers’, including murderers and rapists, because I don’t think that’s what Jesus would have meant. (Would Jesus have stood idly by while someone was being forcibly raped in front of him, I don’t think so? If someone else tried to help a woman being raped in front of him, would he have told that person to refrain and not to resist the evil doer? Of course not.) He also is reputed to have said ‘He who lives by the sword dies by the sword’. While that may often be the case, it isn’t always true. Jesus wasn’t a liar, logically then he must have felt that making statements that, on the whole, have general applicability in the context within which they are given is reasonable to do, but, quite likely, if pressed on the matter, in his inimitable way Jesus would have no doubt highlighted the fallacy of the kind of thinking that extrapolates a supposedly ‘universal Truth’ from an obviously context specific general statement on a matter. (And, finally, Heaven forbid, if Jesus did advocate what some people seem to suggest, pacificm in all contexts then, in my opinion he was wrong. But I don’t believe that he did. And I don’t believe the statements attributed to him suggest this.)

Is it spiritual then to make a stand against evil in a fair way, such as through the response advocated by the ‘eye for an eye principle’? I think not only is the answer yes, but, more than that, it's actually vital that we all collectively take a stand against injustice, like Jesus did, to make our world a better place. To sit back and let the evil shape our world is not an option. When we consider the context of ‘an eye for an eye’ we should also recall Edmund Burke’s wise maxim: 'All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.’

---

Here are a couple of additional links that I've just found on this subject that are of further interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek

Keep checking back to this page because I'll add details of a few more good books about the historical Jesus (one of which goes into this issue in significant detail) when I have time.

17/11/2011

... Here you are: The Hidden Teachings of Jesus - The Political Meaning of the Kingdom of God, by Lance deHaven-Smith.