In our money-driven society, money has become the standard with which we determine equality, yet it is very hard to place such an earthly value on, say, a human life. As long as you have money, it is not too difficult to get away with a serious crime. If we look at William Ian Miller's analysis of the talionic societies, we will find that the old "eye for an eye" adage may help to revamp our justice system.
Miller acknowledges the fact that money cannot come close to the value of a human life. Therefore, the only compensation that will truly equate a wrongful act is something equal to the loss, which could very well be a human life. Miller's key argument about the talionic system returns dignity to our modern system. Miller claims that our seemingly sensitive society "confers anxious dignity" to wrongdoers . Why should wrongdoers receive dignity if they took someone else's away in the first place? Doesn't a justice system have to amend wrongdoing? If a criminal receives dignity from the public, then the vicitim will not feel any better and may even feel that they have not been treated equally.
Ultimately, Miller reveals the true purpose of a talionic system. It should not exist to satisfy vengeful feelings, but it should create peace. Establishing a punishment that fits the crime makes the two parties, the wrongdoer and the victim, equals again so that neither party feels as if they have been cheated.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
EA,
Before reading your post i thought that the whole "eye for an eye" saying was out dated and had no place in our modern society. Yet after reading your post my opinion has completely changed. I enjoyed the way you articulated what justice should be in todays world. That the "eye for an eye" saying should exist because it is the only way to maintain equality in this material world of ours. But main news stories in todays world have to do with the various wars going on, do you think if one country bombs the other that the other country has a right to revenge and thus bombs the other country back, even though innocent people are killed along the way?? and is there ever an ending point to the "eye for an eye" saying?
EM, you have definitely made me consider modern-day issues like war that would make a talionic system tricky. If one country were to bomb another, then the talionic system would not create equality, but only more destruction. So I believe that, in the case of the bombing country, the aggressor can should fix--by providing funds, perhaps--the damage that it did to the other. Then it would not be a punishment that exactly like the crime, but it would still be equal.
Post a Comment