Posted on 12/26/2005 9:01:56 AM PST by Alouette
There is a good analogy between boxing and corporal punishment.
When men fought bare-knuckled, their faces and bodies got cut up and a lot of blood flew around. It was visually distressing.
However, it is not possible to hit a guy in the head with an unprotected hand hard enough to cause the brain to bounce back and forth off the inside of the skull. Try it and you break the bones in your hand. Therefore, very few fighters became "punchy" in the bare-knuckle days.
We move to boxing gloves, largely to make the sport "less violent," and the damage to the boxers became much less obvious, but also much more severe in the long run. Mini-strokes destroy the brain, as we can all see in Muhammad Ali.
Similarly, I suspect properly-administered corporal punishment would appear to be more cruel than imprisonment while in reality being more merciful, since I believe it would be a more effective deterrent to future misbehavior. The other factor is that the great cruelty of imprisonment is hidden behind walls, so we don't have to think about it or watch it. Some even appear to think it appropriate to allow some prisoners to victimize others. IOW, we subcontract out the cruelty to the worst members of our society and then congratulate ourselves for being too kind to be mean to others.
I am perfectly well aware that the reinstitution of corporal punishment isn't going to happen, as there is no constituency for such changes. So my promotion of the idea is in the form of a thought experiment, nothing more.
So far, the responses have mentioned the following:
We don't do things that way here. IOW, the idea is unpopular.
When the Bible says "an eye for an eye," it doesn't really mean eyes, it's talking about monetary compensation. Possible, but certainly debatable.
Some crimes were not fully intentional. True, but irrelevant.
Nobody has really attempted to explain what is UNJUST about the principle of inflicting on A the exact same damage that he intentionally inflicted on B.
Thank you. I couldn't ask for anything more.
Kneejerk rejection of an idea is never logical.
I forgot one argument against corposal punishment that was proposed:
Muslims do it, therefore it is wrong. I hope everybody can see the illogic of this.
Muslims also practice capital punishment for murder, but most of us support the same thing. Not everything that Muslims do is for that reason a bad idea.
In practice, "ayin tachat ayin, shen tachat shen" is interpreted in Jewish law to be a metaphor for "the amount of the lawsuit shall not exceed the damages incurred by the plaintiff." It occurs in a section of the Law that deals with civil damages, not criminal penalties. Think of it as Biblical tort reform.
"You are the very first person I have ever run across who appears to claim that having purely monetary penalties for crime is a morally superior system. The immorality of it can be seen by the idiocy of today's sports commissions who "punish" a player earning $20M/year by fining him $5000."
Never claimed it. You are misstating my views. I never said that there should be purely monetary penalties for intentional crimes in which people are killed or maimed.
I said that the biblical 'eye for an eye' was a tort concept for unintentional harm.
"The Jews, and other ancient peoples, had nothing resembling our long-term imprisonment. So what form of punishment did they use, if the eye for an eye principle was not used?"
And you know this how? The ancient system was much more complex than you are imagining. Look up the term Arei Miklat for starters.
And I see from the other post that you know about indentured servitude to pay off debts. That puts the rich on a more equal footing with the poor than today's accused using a public defender compared to OJ's legal team. The sophism is viewing the US criminal justice system as an equal opportunity justice meter. It isn't.
"I realize that Orthodox Jews view the Talmud as of similar authority with the Law. I do not, however, agree with them."
What do you mean by "I don't agree with them?" Are you Jewish?
"However, Jesus does not appear to have a much higher opinion of the Pharisees of his day than he did of the Saducees."
Was that Jesus or the Gospels?
Further the derogation of the term "legalistic" is contradictory to Christian, and by that I mean Western, society which took this essential concept, that the law is above the state, from Judaism.
"The immorality of it can be seen by the idiocy of today's sports commissions who "punish" a player earning $20M/year by fining him $5000."
The analogy here would be punishing murder by a week in jail. In other words because the monetary punishment is too little does not mean no monetary punishment would suit.
I think you've touched on something important. The doctrine of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is commonly (and wrongly) ascribed to Old Testament Judaism as contrasted with Christian ethics and morality that transcend such a doctrine. The fact is that this notion of "an eye for an eye..." (lex talionis) was adopted by Judaism from Babylonian law (Code of Hummarabbi, etc.) and was a very PROGRESSIVE and ENLIGHTENED concept in the history of law. Let me explain by giving a hypothetical illustration. Before lex talionis if one stole a pear from a neighbor he might have his hand chopped off. If he walked onto another's garden he might have his foot chopped off. And so on -- but the radical importance of the new doctrine was that for the first time it made THE PUNISHMENT COMMENSURATE WITH THE CRIME. This is something that modern Western law is still wrestling with! Judging from our current legal and punitive laxity we have a doctrine that should be called " an eye for a plea bargain and a tooth for a long-lost lead filling."
"THE PUNISHMENT COMMENSURATE WITH THE CRIME"
Exactly.
Such uncivillized and barbaric acts should be stopped at any cost.i would like to share an additional information that the Saudi national did not loose his eye but just got it injured.
Okay. I looked up Arei Miklat. I was not familiar with the term, but I am quite familiar with the concept of the cities of refuge. The cities of refuge were provided for unintentional killers. There was no refuge for intentional killers.
However, so far you have avoided answering my question. Let us assume that the eye for an eye applies to civil penalties for purely unintentional acts. So what were the penalties for those who committed an intentional act of assault that resulted in a broken arm or lost eye?
I am not Jewish.
The only documents we have about Jesus' life portray him as quite hostile to the Pharisees as well as the Saducees and other sects of the Jewish leaders. You may prefer to believe that this is the viewpoint of the Gospel writers rather than that of Jesus, but this is pure speculation that is not just unsupported by, but is in flat contradiction to the only documentation we have. These documents state that Jesus' criticism of these leaders was based on their invalidating the clear meaning of the written Law by means of their traditions, presumably the early version of the Talmud.
The only documentation I have ever seen of ancient prisons is that they were places where personal enemies of the ruler were held, or where those accused of crimes were held pending trial. I know of no ancient society that used longterm imprisonment as a punishment for ordinary crime. Do you?
My point with regard to the sports player is that a fine of $5000 is no disincentive at all to a man of enormous wealth, whereas it might be a huge burden to someone of very limited means. Thus set monetary penalties as punishment for crime mean that rich men are punished much more lightly than poor men. In fact, for a sufficiently rich man, it is no punishment at all. This is inherently unjust, as I'm sure you will agree. This great inequity would be in addition to the likelihood that a rich, powerful man would be much less likely to be prosecuted or convicted than a poor man, due to bribery or political influence, as the Prophets and other books of the OT make very clear.
As to your contention that the phrase in question refers only to civil penalties, I am aware that this is the view of present-day Jewish scholars, but I believe it is pretty clearly contradicted by the passages themselves:
Exodus 21: 22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Here the monetary penalty for minor injuries is specifically contrasted with the physical penalties to be applied for serious injury.
Leviticus 24: 17 " 'If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death. 18 Anyone who takes the life of someone's animal must make restitution—life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. 21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death."
To those not highly educated in the emanations and penumbras of such clear language, this clearly classes the physical punishment for assault or injury as falling under the exact same principle that mandates capital punishment for intentional murder. So does your principle of monetary penalty also apply to murder? IOW, the language is either figurative for both murder and assault or literal for both.
Deuteronomy 19: 21 "Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."
Again, either capital punishment for murder really means a fine, or the physical punishments mean exactly what they say. The injunction to "show no pity" repeats an earlier injunction in the same chapter to not show pity to intentional murderers. "Show no pity" seems an odd injunction to apply to a man's bank account, but a lot more logical if it involves breaking his leg or putting out his eye.
What you are claiming this verse "really" means is: "Show no pity; life for life, eye for $15000, tooth for $5000, hand for $10000, foot for $7000." Such an interpretation is clearly oxymoronic.
“The only documents we have about Jesus' life portray him as quite hostile to the Pharisees as well as the Saducees and other sects of the Jewish leaders. You may prefer to believe that this is the viewpoint of the Gospel writers rather than that of Jesus, but this is pure speculation that is not just unsupported by, but is in flat contradiction to the only documentation we have. These documents state that Jesus' criticism of these leaders was based on their invalidating the clear meaning of the written Law by means of their traditions, presumably the early version of the Talmud.”
Who mentions the Sadducees? Why are they omitted and the focus placed on the Pharisees? When were the Gospels written? From what sect were James, Peter and Paul? The first followers of Jesus were observant Jews who followed the so called legalistic Mosaic law.
Where in the Gospel is the Talmud mentioned? Nowhere. It wasn’t written yet.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“However, so far you have avoided answering my question. Let us assume that the eye for an eye applies to civil penalties for purely unintentional acts. So what were the penalties for those who committed an intentional act of assault that resulted in a broken arm or lost eye? “
Define “purely unintentional acts?” Where does today’s reckless homicide/manslaughter fit in?
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“As to your contention that the phrase in question refers only to civil penalties, I am aware that this is the view of present-day Jewish scholars, but I believe it is pretty clearly contradicted by the passages themselves…”
No. It is the view of Jewish sages throughout every age. There is unanimity on this point throughout Jewish history.
Further, the Oral Law has the same source (God to Moses at Sinai), the same force (equal to the Written), and the OT is inexplicable and bereft without it. This set of beliefs is fundamental to Judaism. That Paul derided the Oral Law does not make it less so to Jews.
I will let the learned explain what appears to you to be contradictions. There is a clear death penalty for murder as distinguished from other compensable offenses. But to exercise it was exceedingly rare since it required to eyewitnesses to the act. What you fail to grasp is that this was a religious society who put the act of judgement and retribution in divine hands. The role of the law never displaced the role of God.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You know what they say. Where you have two Jews, you have three opinions. Yet for the next biblical study session, all Jews, at all times, scholars and laymen, understood the biblical verse to mean just one thing. We are talking about the principle of Lex Talionis (Exodus 21, Leviticus 24), none other then one of the most misunderstood concepts in the entire Bible, the legal category of an eye for an eye. Not a single disagreement exists among 2,000 saintly Rabbis of the Talmud. All agree, that in every single application or instance of injury, it means monetary compensation only. Not a single, solitary case was ever decided in any other way. If you would charge that we are changing in any way the law of the written Torah, then why did we not, long ago, change the actual written text as well? Simply because, the holy text on its own shows without a shadow of a doubt, that there is no other possible interpretation. Let me remind us that the book of Leviticus 24:22, says clearly, “You shall have one law, the stranger shall be as the citizen, for I am the L-rd your G-d.” This verse eloquently concludes a section that deals with personal injuries. If we were to say that an eye for eye calls for exact retribution, then the Torah’s requirement for one law would make no sense
What on earth would you do if a blind person blinded someone, or if a disabled person disabled someone? You could not fulfill the literal injunction of eye for eye, foot for foot! The fact is, eye for an eye, is simply a biblical classification, a divine technical legal term, for just compensation. Look throughout the entire Bible if you will; the term "tachat" means "instead of", "below", or "underneath", but it does not mean for. If the Bible wanted us to take this verse in it’s most external superficial way, it would have written ayin b’ayin, the “b “ meaning "for", and not "ayain tachat ayin" as it is actually written in the text.
Don’t forget to look at the clear prohibition of accepting money – compensation for malicious murder. “Ye shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer” (Numbers 35:31). You see, for anything less than murder, compensation is in order. You can’t take ransom for the life of a murderer, but you do take compensation for injury to bodily organs. The Torah asks for compensation that would not be accomplished by merely damaging the offender. If my eye was 20/40, and yours 20/20; if mine was the hand of a piano player and yours is not, it would not be a fair exchange. Clearly the impossibility of literal application is obvious. The language is such to convey a moral standard, namely the enormity of causing personal injury and it is as if you should lose your corresponding body part. If the Torah had only written “monetary compensation,” we might think that just as in the case of someone who kills his neighbor's animal, pays up and is then free from any other punishment, likewise one who injures another person and pays is also free from further obligation. This is not the case however. He must still ask for forgiveness, and seek atonement from the injured party (Maharal). The Torah never tires from making statements in the written text, that set moral standards. The practical application is to compensate and make good, not to create more pain and loss in the community. The actual Hebrew shows this by using a term that means to complete, make peace, make up and compensate. We mentioned earlier that the word "tachat" in the expression ‘eye for an eye,’ means "instead of", "under," or "beneath". There is a deeper level of meaning that can be gleaned from studying the exact words used in the Torah. The letters which spell the word “eye” in Hebrew are Ayin, Yod, and Nun ( òéï ). These letters each come “beneath” or fall exactly behind the letters Caf, Samech and Fey. (In the order of the Hebrew alphabet Yod is directly followed by Caf, Nun is followed by Samech, and Ayin is followed by Fey).
What do Caf, Samech and Fey spell?
The three letter word for money - CeSeF(C-S-F-)!
This once again shows the literal intention of the Scriptures to be monetary compensation. This concept also applies to the Biblical phrase, ‘life for life. ’ Look at the parallel verse: [Leviticus 24:18] – “HE THAT SMITHETH A BEAST MORTALLY SHALL MAKE IT GOOD ‘LIFE FOR LIFE’.” Again, this simply means fair compensation, otherwise anyone who killed an animal would have to forfeit his life in return. To take away all doubt as to the intent of this technical legal term ‘life for life,’ the same paragraph [Leviticus 24:21] says, “HE THAT KILLS A BEAST SHALL MAKE IT GOOD; AND HE THAT MURDERED A MAN SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH.”
This concept is paraphrased clearly by the following source (Torah Kohanim Baba Kama 84):
“I might think that if a man blinded his fellow man, he too should be blinded, or if he cut off the hand of his fellow man, his hand should be cut off….We are therefore taught (by the juxtaposition of the verses) that damaging another’s animal is comparable to injuring one’s fellow man; just as one who damages another’s animal must pay financial compensation, so must one who injures another man.” Notice that the concept of an eye for an eye, is classified in the section of law dealing with accidental injuries. The verses preceeding the text of “eye for an eye,” deal with intentional assault. In these cases however, the Torah does not call for any exact retribution relative to the damages. Therefore, if the term 'eye for an eye' was misunderstood as being literal, we would have to conclude that according to the Torah accidental damages and injury is much worse that premeditated, intentionally inflicted injury.
The sages regard eye and tooth merely as typical examples of damages. They also list twenty-four other bodily organs that fall under the same legal classification and jurisdiction. In computing compensation, the actual damage, loss of time, cost of cure, pain, disfigurement, and embarrassment, are all taken into consideration (Hertz Pentateuch). The jist of it is, “SHALL MAKE IT GOOD, HE SHALL GIVE MONEY”, [Exodus 21:34 ].
http://britam.org/avraham/Feld5Ch03.html
Six of these Levitical cities, three on each side of the Jordan, were designated as Arei Miklat (Cities of Refuge) besides the other forty-two minor Arei Miklat. They would provide asylum for whoever killed another person accidentally, allowing him to escape any vengeful acts of the dead man's relatives. Following an accidental murder, the perpetrator could flee to one of the Arei Miklat where he would be brought before a judicial tribunal. If the judges decided that this was a case of wilful premeditated murder the sentence was death. On the other hand, if the murder was unplanned and without evil intent, the perpetrator would have to stay in the City of Refuge until the death of the Kohein Gadol. Even a wilful murderer could not be condemned to death unless there were two eye witnesses to incriminate him. The wilful murderer could not have his death sentence commuted by means of monetary payment, nor could the accidental murderer escape exile in the City of Refuge through the payment of ransom money.
http://stkildashule.org/shabb/shabb_Mattot-Masei.asp
One who pays compensation for the loss of sight does not make good the damage as one who damages his fellow’s goods. The money only serves to make good the monetary damage involved in the loss of the eye or hand, but the actual loss of the eye can never be made good. Injury to another human being is a crime that cannot be made good by ransom or monetary payment.
This is the reason why the Torah did not use the expression, He shall pay for his eye. This emerges even more clearly from the verse of our Parasha which we cited at the beginning. After the punishment for mortally injuring a man or beast is stated (v. 17-18) comes the punishment of the one who causes bodily injury to which the punishment for the one who injures a beast is not juxtaposed. For in the case of man the difference between mortal injury (murder) and maiming is qualitative (death—money), whereas in the case of beast there is merely a quantitative difference between killing it ad injuring it (greater or lesser compensation according to the injury).
Our Parasha concludes by contrasting both:
He who kills a beast shall make it good, but he who kills a man shall be put to death. 24:12
The verse appears superfluous, a repetition of the previous, unless we bear in mind that it wishes to impress upon us the difference between man’s responsibility for his fellow’s goods and his responsibility for his fellow’s life as a human being created in the image of God.
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/emor.html
http://www.hebroots.org/hebrootsarchive/0002/000204_f.html
http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_mishpatim.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.