The famous biblical “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” has another name adopted in jurisprudence, the principle of talion. What does it mean, how did it come about, how and where is it used today?
Definition
The Talion principle presupposes punishment for a crime, the measure of which is to reproduce the harm that is caused to them.
It can be material and symbolic. In the first case, the harm inflicted is reproduced exactly by the punishment, and in the second case, the equality of crime and retaliation is carried out in the idea.
The emergence of the talion principle is associated with the growth of a person’s legal consciousness, when uncontrolled blood feud no longer meets the requirements of legal awareness. Thus, his goal is to protect the offender and members of his family from attempts to inflict excessive damage on the part of the victim and his family.
Taleon punishment in prehistoric times
The origins of the idea of balancing the punishment of a criminal with the damage that he inflicted appeared in a primitive society many millennia ago. In primitive form, this principle has been preserved among some peoples to this day. So, among the inhabitants of Guinea, a man whose wife was convicted of adultery, had the right to sleep with the wife of the guilty, and in Abyssinia a brother or other relative of a man who died as a result of someone's careless fall from a tree, could himself jump under the same conditions from a height to an involuntary offender.
The principle of talion in the laws of Hammurabi
This king of Babylon, known for his wisdom and foresight, created a set of rules by which justice should be administered in his country and on the territory of the conquered lands. In the laws of Hammurabi there are 3 types of punishments:
- punishment according to the typical talion, that is, on the principle of "an eye for an eye";
- according to a symbolic rule (the son who hit the father was cut off his hand, the doctor for the unsuccessful surgery - finger, etc.);
- according to the mirror rule (if the roof of the house collapsed and killed one of the members of the owner’s family, they put the relative of the builder to death).
Interestingly, for a false accusation, a person could also be threatened with killing. In particular, such punishment was presumed if the defamed person was put to death.
In Judea and in Ancient Rome
The famous theologian Philo of Alexandria defended the principle of balanced retribution as the only fair way to punish the guilty. He was one of the first Jewish thinkers to consider the possibility of compensation for damage.
Responsibility on the basis of the talion was recorded in the laws of ancient Rome. During the same period in Judea, the victim could choose between causing the same damage to the guilty and monetary compensation, which was prescribed in the Old Testament (cf. Exodus 21:30). However, after some time, Talmud lawmakers decided that only monetary compensation can be recognized as a worthy talion for personal injury. They justified this with the fact that the justice of the talion cannot be regarded as true, since the eye can be smaller or larger, sighted or visually impaired, etc.
Thus, the principle of talion equivalence , as well as the unity of law prescribed by the Old Testament for all, was initially violated.
In the bible
In the Old Testament, the talion principle was introduced to stop the chain of crime due to blood feud between families, which could last for decades. Instead, the principle of equal retaliation was applied. Moreover, this law was intended for use by judges, and not by individuals. That is why scientists urge not to consider the biblical principle of justice “an eye for an eye” as a call for revenge, since the Old Testament Book of Exodus (21: 23-21: 27) refers only to the compliance of the punishment measure with the gravity of the crime committed.
Later, Christ called for “turning the right cheek”, thereby making a revolution in the minds of people. However, the principle of talion did not disappear, but was transformed into the “golden rule of ethics”, in the original wording saying that you should not act with others the way you do not want to be treated with you, and later served as a call for positive action.
In the Qur'an
In Islam, punishment on the principle of the talion means in some cases the opportunity to compensate for the damage with a ransom.
In particular, the Koran prescribed mirror retaliation for those killed (woman for woman, slave for slave), but if the killer was forgiven by a relative (necessarily a Muslim), then he should pay a decent ransom to the victims. The last rule is presented as “relief and mercy,” and torture punishment is imposed for its violation.
At the same time, the behavior of the forgiving person in Sura 5 is considered to be an act of atonement for sins. However, forgiveness in it is only recommended, but not required. At the same time, in subsequent surahs, one can find the idea that the reward of evil for evil is itself such, so the avenger equates himself with a villain.
Thus, in Islam, the talion is not rejected as emphatically as in Christianity. Especially harsh demands to make distinctions when resolving issues with "your own" and in relation to the infidels, whose offense must be answered in the same way.
In Russian law
The idea of the talion in our country continued until the 18th century. So, in the Cathedral Code of 1649, the punishment on the principle of the talion means that he should do the same to the criminal as he did. The law explicitly states that for a gouged eye, one should "do the same for him." Moreover, criminals could be tortured during the holidays, as they did dashing things on all days of the week.
Strange as it may seem, the talion was also preserved in the laws of Peter I. In particular, in the Military Article of 1715 it was prescribed to burn the tongues of blasphemers with a hot iron, cut off two fingers for a false oath, and cut off his head for killing.
However, over time, such forms of talion ceased to be used. First of all, this was due to the fact that the forms of crime became more complicated, and mirror punishment became impossible.
From a moral point of view
It is believed that the principle of talion is the first in a series of norms by which people ask the most general formulations on how the ratio of good and evil should be regulated. In other words, he anticipates the emergence of moral standards. However, the emergence of a state that took over the functions of justice turned the talion into a relic of the past and deleted it from the list of basic principles of moral regulation.
Now you know the moral content of the principle of talion, as well as its interpretation and essence of use in different religious and cultural traditions.