"My point is that the very idea of "an eye for an eye" is usually portrayed as unjust and barbaric. I cannot see why. It merely results in the court applying the same damage to the perp as he inflicted on the victim.
Most of us accept this equivalence readily enough in its most extreme application, the death penalty. Why balk at applying the same principle in less extreme situations?"
Are you serious?
There is no equivalence.
The death penalty is applied only very rarely and only for DELIBERATE acts of killing.
I have seldom heard of a DELIBERATE act of eye gouging. Sometimes, as here, it is a mere accident or a byproduct of a physical fight. Further even here it is eye injury not total loss.
Finally the point of the law and judgement under the law is NOT to descend to the level of the criminal or mete out God like retribution.
The Old Testament concept of 'an eye for an eye' is widely misunderstood because its meaning derives from the Oral Tradition (Talmud) with which it is inextricably tied.
The Talmud explains that it is a Tort concept of financial value. Thus a person who loses an eye is entitled to the monetary equivalent based on lost earnings, pain and suffering, etc. That is a far cry from the Saudi Arabian barbarism and quite a sophisticated concept for those times.
The death penalty is applied only very rarely and only for DELIBERATE acts of killing.
Quite true. However, I believe the death penalty is applied far too seldom. I would prefer laws where the death penalty was the default punishment for murder, with mitigation in unusual circumstances, rather than the present situation where the death penalty requires special circumstances.
In fact, I think many, though not all, of the punishments for crime prescribed in the Mosaic Law would be more effective and actually merciful than those we use today. For example, I know I would absolutely prefer to be flogged for a relatively minor crime and spend a week in the hospital recovering than be locked up with the scum of the universe for a year. I suspect such a punishment would be a far more effective deterrent than our present system.
The Talmud explains that it is a Tort concept of financial value. Thus a person who loses an eye is entitled to the monetary equivalent based on lost earnings, pain and suffering, etc.
If so, all crimes against persons could be settled by paying the equivalent of a fine, making it similar to our present civil justice system rather than our criminal system. This inherently means wealthy persons could commit crimes with essential impunity. I fail to see why you consider this system morally superior.
It is also a fact that the Talmud was not developed until centuries, perhaps as much as a thousand years, after the Mosaic Law. You can interpret the Law in the light of the Talmud, if you wish. I suspect that the Talmud often attempts to circumvent the pretty clear language of the Law.
For instance, the conversion of all penalties for crimes against persons into monetary penalties would certainly be very much in the interests of the wealthy, who often had great influence among the rabbis, at least according to one Jesus of Nazareth.
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."