Would this legal system work?

[Deleted]

Lets say we had a revolution and changed things the way we govern and change the definition of democracy.
I am talking about the criminal system. Would a "if you did this to me, I will do to you" system be implemented, can this teach someone a lesson in the long run?

Let me elaborate. If this system were in place and a Bob stole something from Jen, then Jen could steal something back from him but more valuable. So if a purse gets stolen then she can steal back his car for example, but legally speaking, another example would consist of rape, if the rapist gets caught, then he will get raped back and make him feel they way victim felt. I really don't think putting a man in a box for couple of years would do anything, but make him more angry and frustrated.

Thoughts?

[Stockers]

An eye for an eye+tax.

No it wouldn't. Not at all. Too many what ifs. Precedent means a lot in law. Stealing a purse allows the victim to steal the offenders car, assuming he has one. What about petty thieves who have little to nothing?

What about a conman who cons millions out of people? Yet at the end he has nothing other than the victims money. So what do they get?

Then what do you do if someone steals your car? Steal their house?

No.

[Medusa Cascade]

No, just no.

[mizeri]

what if the guilty was wrongfully convicted, would the judge, jury and the prosecutor be raped because they fucked up?

[Jotaux]

So if a man rapes a woman she has to rape him back harder?

[Revi]

I'm all for an eye for an eye (or two eyes for an eye even) as a direct and immediate response to uncomplicated situations. You attack someone, you deserve the beating you get if they turn it around. You slap someone, you deserve a harder one back. You try to kill someone and they kill you in defense, totally justified.

But as a form of legal punishment it's a horrible idea. Completely unworkable.

[Gheld]

what if the guilty was wrongfully convicted, would the judge, jury and the prosecutor be raped because they fucked up?

I watched an episode of CSI. When you are committing crimes you drop little tiny things such as hairs, and all investigators have to do is find the hairs and then they see a cutaway scene of you actually committing the crime.

[Mehrunes]

Retributive criminal justice is a bad way to set up the system in general. An eye for an eye takes it up a notch and enters the perversion of justice land. What you propose is even worse than that. What purpose does the "but more" part serve? And as pointed out, there can be a plethora of cases where the perpetrator does not have a "but more" equivalent. Prime example, murder. Are you going to murder them in a more severe way? Or murder them twice? Or murder their family too? Even if it's the more severe way of murder, which is the only achievable thing here, we're back to the issue of purpose. They're dead either way.

I watched an episode of CSI. When you are committing crimes you drop little tiny things such as hairs, and all investigators have to do is find the hairs and then they see a cutaway scene of you actually committing the crime.

You forgot the magical zoom.

[Deleted]

what if the guilty was wrongfully convicted, would the judge, jury and the prosecutor be raped because they fucked up?

Its happening all the time, I can only point out the wrongfully convictions that were in the news, as I haven't got any good sources. They are happening though. Does a judge gets jail after wrong conviction? She/he still works there, so in the new system it would be the same, I am talking about criminals and victims here.

- - - Updated - - -

So if a man rapes a woman she has to rape him back harder?

A male can get hired for that. Same way Saudi Arabia advertises for beheading jobs, sure, you might think thats strange, but they do that.

- - - Updated - - -

An eye for an eye+tax.

No it wouldn't. Not at all. Too many what ifs. Precedent means a lot in law. Stealing a purse allows the victim to steal the offenders car, assuming he has one. What about petty thieves who have little to nothing?

What about a conman who cons millions out of people? Yet at the end he has nothing other than the victims money. So what do they get?

Then what do you do if someone steals your car? Steal their house?

No.

Then don't steal, simple as.

[Stockers]

Then don't steal, simple as.

What?

10 chars

[Rukh]

Ask Hammurabi I guess. I tend to think we've come some way since then.

[Deleted]

Retributive criminal justice is a bad way to set up the system in general. An eye for an eye takes it up a notch and enters the perversion of justice land. What you propose is even worse than that. What purpose does the "but more" part serve? And as pointed out, there can be a plethora of cases where the perpetrator does not have a "but more" equivalent. Prime example, murder. Are you going to murder them in a more severe way? Or murder them twice? Or murder their family too? Even if it's the more severe way of murder, which is the only achievable thing here, we're back to the issue of purpose. They're dead either way.




You forgot the magical zoom.

If the murderer was guilty then a death penalty would be executed followed by free health insurance for victim's family. Murder is a serious crime and should be punishable harder than in our system now.

[Hiricine]

Best justice is ostracism, if someone disobeys society's rules you exclude them from society, and turn them into poison, everyone who associates with them gets excluded as well. No grocery stores, no benefits, no utilities, just nothing. You literally starve to death if you can't forage off the land, and even then its a crappy life. Then just put in a tested rehabilitation program that allows limited privileges for those that comply with the penalty. You wouldn't even need prisons anymore.

[Damajin]

It works in a simpler society but we haven't had one of those since what, the Dark Ages? The only application of this principle I can see as valid is capital offenses for murder and rape. Those should never be treated with anything but the heaviest of hands, anything else can be handled using much more normal means weighing such things as precedent, intent and the like.

[Medusa Cascade]

He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster.

[I Push Buttons]

Best justice is ostracism, if someone disobeys society's rules you exclude them from society, and turn them into poison, everyone who associates with them gets excluded as well. No grocery stores, no benefits, no utilities, just nothing. You literally starve to death if you can't forage off the land, and even then its a crappy life. Then just put in a tested rehabilitation program that allows limited privileges for those that comply with the penalty. You wouldn't even need prisons anymore.

So when the ostracized people start stealing what they need and attacking people?

Do we double ostracize them?

[Deleted]

What about white collar crime?

[JohnBrown1917]

I watched an episode of CSI. When you are committing crimes you drop little tiny things such as hairs, and all investigators have to do is find the hairs and then they see a cutaway scene of you actually committing the crime.

The gamer terrorist episode made me a expert on cybercrimes and how to keep grills out of vidya.
All hail Acid Rain.

[Mehrunes]

So when the ostracized people start stealing what they need and attacking people?

Do we double ostracize them?

But the second ostracism would require acknowledging that they exist and interacting with them in some way. So the people doing so would need to be excluded as well.

[imabanana]

A male can get hired for that.

I can see a lot of criminals enjoying this legal system A LOT.