An Eye For An Eye

Should there be a universal law that claims ‘an eye for an eye’?

For those etymologically handicapped, the phrase is derived from ‘ayin tachat ayin’, literally 'an eye in place of an eye'. It stems from the Code of Hammurabi, a King of Babylon, 1792-1750BC. It is listed in the King James version of the Bible, Matthew 5:38 (King James Version): Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.

This is a tough one, especially for me since I prefer to dance between two opposing sides of the debate as I agree with the strong points of both so I am in a limbo here.

		Opinion 1 - For	Opinion 2 - Against
1	Crime rate	It lowers crime rate. E.g. There is a low rate of crime in Saudi Arabia where the Quran is regarded the constitution of the country, governed based on Islamic law. The legal system stipulates capital punishment or corporal punishment.	Crime rates exist though criminal complaints are resolved outside formal judicial institutions. Therefore, there is no documentation on this.
2	Closure	It provides a sense of closure to families suffering from injustice.	It backfires in the event the accused person is not the guilty one.
3	Retaliation	If Japan had not attacked the U.S., the U.S. would not have entered the war. It also ended World War 2.	Retaliation on the part of U.S. to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor resulted in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
4	Atrocities against women	The lack of a strong deterring sentence allows atrocities against women to continue.	Crimes against women such as rapes, dowry harassment, acid throwing and physical violence take years of appeals in courthouses across the world before anything happens, if it ever does.
5	Retributive justice opinion	Public opinion is in favour.	Legal establishments sneer at them.
6	Death penalty	Murderers will wonder what they could have done to prevent this day. Fearing the death penalty could prevent a murder.	How can people be expected to learn that killing is wrong if the legal system kills people?

Ban Politicians' Posters From Defiling the Landscape

Don’t you want to rip all those ugly posters of politicians all around the city of Bangalore? It makes my blood boil to see those horrid faces plastered all over, ruining the vicinity. Bangalore is no longer the beautiful city it once was. It is true that most Bangaloreans take for granted the greenery around. In fact, we hardly even notice it owing to the rather pathetic state of our civic infrastructure. As we struggle to drive our cars and bikes through well-deep potholes, squeeze through the maze of traffic, climb over illegal road humps the sizes of which are the root cause for under carriage wear and tear, it is near impossible to look around and see a thing of beauty.

As Keats once said, “A thing of beauty is a joy forever.” Sadly, the words of this great poet have no bearing in the city of Bangalore anymore. Monstrous high rises line the cityscape, newly laid road are ripped apart by the infamous trench diggers and traffic snarls snake through the once quiet, tree-lined streets. Pavements are a joke—they have become 1) Parking spots – reserved too, if you notice the painted signs on the walls daring you to park in their zone, 2) Mini shrines – notice the fake Babas who set shop on the smaller roads, 3) private gardens – the arrogance of home owners to take over the pavement lining them with pots, creating beds to prevent parking along their wall on the public road.

Woes are many but the one topmost on my list is the atrocity of politicians to defile our vision by putting up gigantic displays of their faces. I wish there was a rule barring those arrogant, so-called leaders from invading public spaces. If you look (and that too not even closely), most of the posters floating around are of thugs, goons. They don't deserve to be leaders. They are just out there trying to make more money to feed their overflowing coffers. The posters do nothing for anyone but feed their own sordid egos. 

Must we bear with this anymore?