Bring Back “An Eye for an Eye”: If the Victim Has Not Forgiven, Who Has?

“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”

It is a famous phrase associated with the ancient Code of Hammurabi.

Today, it is treated as a barbaric idea. But while watching the news recently, a thought occurred to me.

Perhaps this was a more reasonable principle than we think.

The thought was prompted by a news report about a victim who lost a leg after being struck by an out-of-control car.

The offender received a three-year prison sentence, suspended for five years.

In other words, the offender would not have to go to prison.

The victim must spend the rest of their life living with the loss of a leg.

The offender, meanwhile, can avoid prison entirely by completing the suspension period without incident.

I cannot accept that easily.

If the Victim Has Not Forgiven, Who Has?

What I found most difficult to accept about this ruling was that the victim had not accepted the offender’s apology.

The offender apologized. The victim remained unconvinced.

Even so, the judge imposed a suspended sentence.

This raises a simple question.

If the victim has not forgiven the offender, who exactly has?

Legally, the judge determines the punishment, not the victim.

I understand that.

But I believe that whether the victim has accepted the apology should be given serious weight when deciding whether to suspend a sentence.

If the victim is satisfied that the offender has reflected enough and says, “There is no need for this person to go to prison,” then a suspended sentence has meaning.

But in this case, the victim remained unconvinced while the judge unilaterally decided that the offender did not need to go to prison.

Once the judge delivers the ruling, the judge’s work is finished. The next day and the next year, however, the victim must continue living without a leg.

Modern Justice That Would Astonish King Hammurabi

“An eye for an eye” is often understood as an encouragement of revenge.

Originally, however, it also served to prevent retaliation from expanding without limit by restricting punishment to a level proportionate to the harm suffered.

In other words, it placed an upper limit on revenge.

Modern punishment takes away freedom instead of injuring the body.

But when a sentence is suspended, even that freedom is not taken away.

Of course, compensation is a separate issue from criminal punishment.

But no amount of money can restore a lost leg.

That is where the Code of Hammurabi enters the discussion.

If you take a leg, you surrender a leg.

Actually reviving such a punishment would cause an uproar. But the idea that a person should bear responsibility proportionate to what they took should still have relevance today.

King Hammurabi might be astonished to hear this ruling.

“Wait. He took someone’s leg, and he gets to go home?”

Who Is Punishment For?

Modern justice systems place considerable weight on an offender’s remorse, rehabilitation, and reintegration into society when determining a sentence.

But an offender’s remorse and the harm suffered by the victim are separate matters.

For a victim who has lost a leg, whether the offender feels remorse does not restore the life they had.

Legal experts could probably offer any number of explanations for why the sentence was suspended.

But hearing those explanations will not restore the victim’s leg.

The offender has an opportunity to return to society. The victim has no opportunity to recover the lost leg.

Should the justice system not give more weight to this asymmetry?

Is “An Eye for an Eye” Truly Outdated?

Amputating the offender’s leg would not save the victim.

That is why I do not literally want to revive corporal punishment.

But there is no need to abandon the principle that a person should bear responsibility proportionate to what they took.

In decisions about suspended sentences in particular, I believe the victim’s wishes should carry more weight.

The victim has not forgiven the offender, yet the offender can avoid prison and return to an ordinary life.

No matter how logically legal experts explain that outcome, I cannot accept what I cannot accept.

“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”

Ancient law is called barbaric.

But modern justice can also be remarkably cruel when it stands before a victim who has lost a leg and announces that the offender will receive a suspended sentence.

Perhaps King Hammurabi would first ask the judge, “What if it were your leg?”