An Eye For An Eye Summary

Stephen Nathanson argues about how the philosophy of “An Eye for an Eye?” and how applying this to punish criminals is bad. While Igor Primoratz argues ways on justifying legal punishments”. Stephen Nathan states that “All it tells us is that the worst crimes ought to be met with the harshest punishment. But it says nothing about how harsh those punishment should be”(Shafer-Landau 380). Bythis quote he is staying that he knows that criminal should be punish for their actions however no one really makes emphasis on how far should the punishment go. Primoratz states that “criminals deserve to be deprived of the same value that they deprived their victims” (Shafer-Landau 370). His idea is reasonable, however wouldn’t doing this show that we are just like …show more content…
Also because by applying this theory we are making criminals be more criminals As society we should not try punishment criminals by doing to them the same thing they did to their victims. As society we should punishment crime but also we should help criminals to rehabilitate because after all they are coming back to society. We should focus on showing criminals that because of their bad actions there are consequences, however we should not do the same to them because we need to teach them that we are better by putting them away instead of causing them physical damage. I really like a phrase by an anonymous author that saids kill them with kindness. Treat them how they deserve, however don't do to them what they did to their victim because that we would be showing to them that we are no better than them. I know that this a very controversial topic and a lot of people would argue to put myself in the position of the victim. Lot of people would argue that treating criminals like we are treating the right now is only showing that we have a weak correction