> The main risk of “an eye for an eye, and a life for a life” is the risk of wrong punishments that cannot be reversed. If harm is caused by accident and witho

> The main risk of “an eye for an eye, and a life for a life” is the risk of wrong punishments that cannot be reversed. If harm is caused by accident and without malicious intent, then yes—“life for life” shouldn’t apply. But we should never underestimate the darkness that exists in human nature. No matter how carefully a system is designed, there will always be those who can game it. That’s why I still believe the spirit of “life for life, eye for eye” should remain a guiding principle—not out of revenge, but out of love and protection. > Such a multiple-valued fine seems a much better punishment than any kind of prison, for any kind of damage that can be repaired. I completely agree with this. Wrongdoers typically commit harmful acts for personal gain, and if they’re only required to repay the exact value of what they took, they still come out ahead in the long run. We need systems that ensure the net profit from wrongdoing falls below zero—so that it’s absolutely clear: crime is silly. I’ve even heard news reports that in California, theft under a certain dollar amount often goes unpunished. The result? The exact opposite of justice. It acts like gravity, pulling people’s free will toward sin and crime.