Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Eye for an eye

  1. Feb 21, 2008 #1
    What would the "eye for an eye" response be to a 50-year old blond female teacher accused of raping a 18 year old boy?
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 21, 2008 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Her own chat show on daytime TV ?
  4. Feb 21, 2008 #3


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I would think that would be consensual. An 18 year old is an adult. What case are you referring to? The only cases I know of is where the female teacher had sex with a minor.
  5. Feb 25, 2008 #4
    Just because the 18 year old is above the legal age of consent (in most countries), it doesn't automatically mean that it isn't rape.

    In response to the original poster, the "eye-for-an-eye" equivalent, I assume, would be for somebody to accuse her of rape (note in the original post, it says "female teacher accused of raping a 18 year old boy").
    The next detail to be figured would be to figure out who would accuse her - somebody 32 years older than her? Somebody 5 times her own age?

    And where does hair colour come into it?

    Kwah =]
  6. Feb 25, 2008 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    True, but I don't know of a case that fits that description, although not impossible, it's not very likely. I honestly don't get what the OP is suggesting.
  7. Feb 25, 2008 #6
    I may have mis-interpreted, but I believe that the situation is largely irrelevant - instead, we are expected to ignore how unlikley it is and assume that the situation has occured.
    In other words, the emphasis in the question is on answering what its eye-for-an-eye equivalent would be.

    I highly doubt that this is based upon a real-life situation, more a topic for discussion since there are many different routes an argument could take - for example, should the accused rapist be raped herself? If so, who would inflict the punishment? Whoever does so becomes no better than the original felon - a common argument against corporal punishment / the death penalty etc.

    Kwah =]
  8. Feb 25, 2008 #7
    "Eye for an eye" does not mean that the punishment must be the equivalent of the crime. It means the punishment cannot exceed the equivalent of the crime.
  9. Feb 25, 2008 #8
    This is true to an extent. As I understand it - though I readily accept I am not an expert and thus is open to correction - an "eye for an eye" is meant to mean the punishment should equal the severity of the crime.. it isn't "an eye for an eye or something of equal or less value".

    Some quick research to aid me in defining this term, and although they are not all reliable sources on their own, they do appear to corroborate what each is saying.


    Kwah =]

    EDIT: Apologies for the lengthy post, I'll try to keep the bloat to a minimum in the future.
  10. Feb 26, 2008 #9

    Thanks for a thoughtful reply. I know little about the Code of Hammurabi; indeed, I don't even know of a good primary source.

    I based my response on the laws given in the Torah; there are a number of Talmudic commentaries on those that suggest "eye for an eye" was intended as a limiting law.
  11. Feb 26, 2008 #10
    Yeah, after looking a little more closely at what is written in the wikipedia article I linked to above, the section regarding the concept of 'an eye-for-an-eye' appears to be not very clear. I have had to reread it multiple types to understand what it is saying and readily accept I may not have a full understanding of it.

    "... the Torah states that punishments serve to remove dangerous elements from society ... and to deter potential criminals from violating the law ..."

    The first part of that quote [source: the wikipedia page which is linked to above] certainly appears to suggest that punishments in excess of the original crime are permitted if the criminal is deemed to be a "dangerous element" of society - in my opinion, this would not be embracing the idea of 'an eye for an eye'.

    I welcome anybody who is knowledgable about Judaism should provide more detailed information.

    Kwah =]
  12. Feb 26, 2008 #11
    jury trial live on cnn!
  13. Feb 26, 2008 #12
    An 82 year old retired teacher of hers... ? :yuck:
  14. Apr 3, 2008 #13
    If someone take's your eye, so therefore you take his eye, because he took your's...

    Dose this mean he can take your other eye beacuse you took his eye?

    when would it ever end....
  15. Apr 4, 2008 #14
    I'll bet the 500,000 Americans who are currently in prison for smoking marijuana wish that we had such a justice system.
  16. Apr 4, 2008 #15
    When I was in college (that was back around the time water was invented), people often got twenty years for a single roach! That far exceeded the usual sentence for second degree murder.
  17. Apr 4, 2008 #16


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    What authority do you have for 500,000 Americans being in prison for smoking marijuana? I know that people can and have been given major sentences for selling cocaine or other major drugs or given somewhat lighter sentences for the use of such but I have never heard of a person getting more than a few days for smoking marijuana.

    TVP45, I was probably in college about the same time you were (I remember water being invented) but I never heard of anyone being given 20 years for smoking marijuana. Four or five years for selling it, possibly 20 or more for selling harder drugs, but not 20 years for smoking or even selling marijuana.
  18. Apr 4, 2008 #17
    It actually comes from the idea that if the people who are affected by the crime are not recompensed they may take the law into their own hands, so it's a process of mediation. What is the loss of four horses worth to you? The law says 2 talents of gold per horse. At least that's the way the law was amongst the Sumerians and Jews. These days some rather dumb people have corrupted it to mean that punishment should be measure for measure. Which of course is idiotic. It should be sufficient and no more and the law is the prerogative of the legal system not the general populace. Even the Jews didn't think a death was necessarily an equivalent for murder, nor was that anything like the point anyway, mostly a sum of money would be adequate to the bereaved family, although they could demand death, this wasn't usually what happened. I actually think in the dark ages and later the 18th century the law took a step back and became corrupted by, frankly, idiots. The people who invented the law were much more civilised in every sense of the word, to be frank. Where it was used as a religious justification it was actually abused. At least with the Celts that existed before the dark ages and before Christianity the justification for murder was the damage it did to the "magic" of the land, the way to repay such a stain on nature was to return the life force to nature to retain balance and restore harmony, usually by severing the jugular and tossing someone in a bog or some sort of public execution. At least that was honest. :smile:
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2008
  19. Apr 4, 2008 #18
    It varied in time and by locality. The 50s were perhaps the harshest and generally sentences were higher in southern states. The Federal laws (Boggs act and Narcotic Control Act - both 50s, not sure otherwise) provided for graduated sentencing minima; I think the 3rd offense carried 10-20 years, and mere possession was considered equivalent to intent to sell UNLESS the defendant could prove otherwise.

    But, state laws were a lot more draconian on occassion. I remember Lousiana as particularly harsh, though I no longer remember the law. In Virginia, which I do remember well, the sentencing guidelines were 20 years minimum, 40 years maximum for first conviction and possession of 25 grains (yes, that's 1.6 g) was intent to distribute. I don't actually know what a roach weighs, but I think it should be close?

    I'm sorry. I don't have any specific citations as to how many were sentenced under this. In fact, I only remember Dr. Timothy Leary who, sometime in the 60s, got 30 years for possession; I think he escaped and went to Europe?

    However, I do recall that my statement was generally true. I was living in Charlottesville, VA in the mid 70s when marijuana was decriminalized in that county (the local Commonwealth Attorney simply announced he would not prosecute anyone for possession). It didn't directly affect me since I didn't use, and my memories are somewhat faded, but I recall a number of news media stories contrasting people convicted one week and getting years in prison while the next week people sat beside cops in a diner and toked up.

    There used to be an organization dedicated to legalizing marijuana and, if someone knows the name, you might see if they are still in existence and have statistics.
  20. Apr 4, 2008 #19
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook