The famous biblical "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" has another name, adopted in jurisprudence - the talion principle. What does it mean, how did it originate, how and where is it used today?
Definition
Talion principle implies punishment for a crime, the measure of which should reproduce the harm caused by them.
It can be material and symbolic. In the first case, the harm caused is reproduced by punishment exactly, and in the second case, the equality of crime and retribution is carried out in the idea.
The emergence of the talion principle is associated with the growth of human legal consciousness, when uncontrolled blood feud no longer meets the requirements of legal consciousness. Thus, its purpose is to protect the offender and members of his family from attempts to inflict excessive harm on them by the victim and his family.
Talión punishment in prehistoric times
The origins of the idea to equate the punishment of a criminal with the damage caused to them appeared in primitive society many millennia ago. In a primitive form, this principle has been preserved among some peoples to this day. Yes, atIn Guinea, a man whose wife was convicted of adultery had the right to sleep with the wife of the guilty person, and in Abyssinia, a brother or other relative of a person who died as a result of someone’s careless fall from a tree could, under the same conditions, jump from a height onto an involuntary offender.
The talion principle in the laws of Hammurabi
This Babylonian king, known for his wisdom and foresight, created a set of rules according to which justice was to be carried out in his country and in the territory of the conquered lands. In the laws of Hammurabi there are 3 types of punishments:
- punishment according to a typical talion, i.e., according to the principle of "an eye for an eye";
- according to a symbolic rule (a son who hit his father was cut off his hand, a doctor for an unsuccessful surgical operation - a finger, etc.);
- according to the mirror rule (if the roof of the house collapsed and killed one of the owner's family members, the builder's relative was put to death).
Interestingly, for a false accusation, a person could also face death. In particular, such punishment was supposed if the slandered person was subjected to the death pen alty.
In Judea and 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 also one of the first Jewish thinkers who considered the possibility of compensation for damages.
Responsibility according to the talion principle was also fixed in the laws of the AncientRome. In the same period in Judea, the victim could choose between inflicting the same damage on the guilty person and monetary compensation, which was prescribed in the Old Testament (cf. Ex. 21:30). However, after some time, the Talmud scholars decided that only monetary compensation could be recognized as a worthy talion for bodily injury. They justified this by saying that the justice of the talion cannot be considered true, since the eye can be smaller or larger, sighted or visually impaired, etc.
Thus, the principle of the equivalence of the talion was violated from the very beginning, as well as the unity of the law for all prescribed in the Old Testament.
In the Bible
In the Old Testament, the principle of talion was introduced to stop a chain of crimes due to blood feuds between families that could continue for many decades. Instead, the principle of equal retribution 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 vengeance, since the Old Testament Book of Exodus (21:23-21:27) deals only with the correspondence of the punishment to the gravity of the crime committed.
Later, Christ called to "turn the right cheek", thereby making a revolution in the minds of people. However, the taliona principle did not disappear, but was transformed into the “golden rule of ethics”, which in its original formulation states that you cannot treat others the way you don’t want them to treat you, butlater issued as a call to affirmative action.
In the Quran
In Islam, talion punishment means in some cases the ability to compensate for the damage by ransom.
In particular, the Koran prescribes a mirror retribution for those killed (a woman for a woman, a slave for a slave), but if the killer was forgiven by a relative (necessarily a Muslim), then he should pay a worthy ransom to the victims. The last rule is presented as "relief and mercy", and a painful punishment is due for its violation.
At the same time, the behavior of the forgiver in Sura 5 is considered an act that atones for sins. However, forgiveness is only recommended, not required. At the same time, in the following suras, one can find the idea that the retribution of evil for evil is itself such, therefore, the one who takes revenge equates himself with the villain.
Thus, talion is not rejected as strongly in Islam as it is in Christianity. Particularly sharp are the demands to make distinctions when resolving issues with “our own” and in relation to the infidels, whose offense is required to be answered in the same way.
In Russian law
The idea of a talion in our country persisted until the 18th century. So, in the Council Code of 1649, punishment according to the principle of a talion means that one must treat the criminal in the same way as he does. The law explicitly states that for a gouged eye one should “do the same to him himself.” Moreover, criminals could be tortured on holidays, as they did dashing deeds on all days of the week.
Oddly enough, but 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 tongue of blasphemers with a red-hot iron, to cut off two fingers for a false oath, and to cut off the head for murder.
However, over time, such forms of talion were no longer used. First of all, this was due to the fact that the forms of crimes became more complicated, and mirror punishment became impossible.
From a moral point of view
The talion principle is believed to be the first in a series of norms by which people set the most general formulations of how the balance of good and evil should be regulated. In other words, it anticipates the emergence of moral norms. However, the emergence of the state, which assumed the functions of justice, turned the talion into a relic of the past and crossed it out of the list of basic principles of regulation based on morality.
Now you know the moral content of the talion principle, as well as its interpretation and the essence of its use in various religious and cultural traditions.
