In its Christian context, "Eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth" was the example of what not to do. In its Jewish context, the phrase is an example of how Torah isn't always meant to be taken literally, and the Talmud points out that this always meant monetary compensation to the victim, not corporeal retaliation.

In Western common law, therefore, virtually all cases of injury, up to, and often including the death of the victim, are treated as monetary matters, with prison being sentenced for crimes where society and the law feel money doesn't adequately address the nature of the crime.

Therefore, in virtually all Western countries, or those adopting a Western-based legal system, only a tiny fraction of all crimes committed fall under the death penalty. Additionally, such a large number of safeguards are in place to prevent a miscarriage of justice, that the number of people actually executed approaches zero in most jurisdictions. In some, it's been years or even decades since someone has been executed.

Thus, people living in Western-based legal systems continue to believe, if only by their actions, that "Eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth" is a valid principle only in terms of monetary compensation for the victim of the crime/accident.

Rather than being hypocrisy, it is simply an attempt at compensating suffering.

Posted using Steeve