An Eye For An Eye....

The Bible reference, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” shows up several times in the Old Testament books of Exodus (21:24), Leviticus (24:20) and Deuteronomy (19:21). Most of us, even those of us who are not Biblical scholars, know this verse because it lays out some commonly held notions about justice for those who have wronged us. These verses are generally interpreted in the same way by most folks; and the message is fairly easy to comprehend. The basic message is that the punishment should fit the crime. In one way, it says that when we are wronged, injured, or damaged by a criminal or we are victimized, we are entitled to punish the wrongdoer to the same extent as the injured party. Many biblical scholars hold that these passages are also an admonition against over-punishing. I suppose that in the primitive days of the Old Testament, people of stature were prone to feel entitled to inflict the ultimate punishment on those who wronged them because the offense was also an insult to the status of the victim. For instance a slave (and slavery was very common) who stole a loaf of bread from the household of a nobleman might well face death for the offense.

I also found this passage in the New Testament. In Matthew 5:38-39 Jesus said, “you have heard it said, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’. But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” This message is a departure from the old notions of justice, and instead suggests that not every offense needs to be met by equally severe punishment or punishment at all. Nonetheless the notion of punishment from the Old Testament isn’t that bad. At least it gives us a framework for modern day applications of fairness.

But this essay isn’t a Bible study. There was an incident in my community this week that brought all of this to mind for me. When I first heard what happened, my mind immediately thought of these old bible verses we are all so familiar with. Here are the facts we know so far. About 8:00 a.m. on a Monday morning a man in my town went out to start his vehicle (a 16 year old Chevy Suburban) that was sitting in his driveway at his home. He went back into the house with the engine running in the driveway. A few moments later, from inside his house, the owner saw another man get into the vehicle and start to drive it away. The owner immediately called 911 to report his vehicle being stolen. As the young man (age 25) was driving away down the street in the stolen car the owner came out of his house with a gun and shot at the man stealing his vehicle. The thief was struck in the back of the head by the vehicle owner’s bullet and was killed instantly. The vehicle proceeded down the street with the driver dead in the seat until it slammed into and through a neighbor’s garage and stopped.

I thought for a short while that I might wait to comment on this incident because not all the facts are known to the public just yet. I thought there might some mitigating circumstances that could move me from my initial thoughts about this. Perhaps there was something that I didn’t know yet, that would suggest a whole different scenario than the one first reported in the news.  As I thought about it more I came to the conclusion that I wanted to share my thoughts in very simple terms. I wanted to say something about this incident that gets to the heart of this event. We have since learned that the car thief had a record of previous car thefts, but you see, that doesn’t matter to me. I want to comment on the pure act of what happened in real time, and why this can happen in a society like ours. In its purest form: a man took property that didn’t belong to him and the victim of the theft killed him in the act, for doing so.  

I know there will be those who believe this action was clearly justified. I've already heard the comments on local radio shows and I’ve seen the comments left on the websites of local TV news stations reporting the story. Some say “a person has a right to defend their property, even with lethal force”. Some say “that punk car thief had it coming”. Some say “we work hard for our things and anybody who wants to take my things better watch out”.   There will be those who hang on every piece of (after the fact) ancillary information about the incident that will surely  come out in the days ahead. They will try to use that information to justify what happened. They will cite the thief’s prior record, or they may hear that the man who shot the thief is normally a solid, law-biding citizen. But for me none of that matters. For me the question is how we can live in a society where our citizens believe that have the right to take a life over property. For me the further question is why; the fact that a person with a gun believes that lethal force is justified for property protection. I think it is proper to think that anytime a person is shot or shot at, we have to assume the shot will be deadly- and I think the shooter has to assume that too. Any sane gun owner should know that. 

So I look at this incident in very pure, simple terms. There are obviously two major issues: first, the law in this state does not allow its citizens to kill another citizen over property. The law here is clear; you may only justifiably kill another person if your life or the life of another is immediately threatened by that person. A car thief driving away from you (even in your car) doesn’t meet that test under any stretch of the circumstances. The second problem is a cultural one. We live in a society where many claim our society is based on Judeo-Christian values; but is also rooted in a gun culture that tells us we can use guns anytime we are threatened and individual citizens are free to make that judgment. This is a conflict! Please refer to the Bible passages above. I am not religious so I don’t believe our laws should come from religious scripture-but there are some notions in religion that make good sense on any level. “An eye for an eye” is one I agree with because it makes sense in any context to have the punishment fit the crime in a civilized society. Imagine what might have happened if the car owner didn’t have a gun. Imagine too that our system of laws worked as it should. The thief would have left with the car- the call to 911 would have resulted in the police apprehending the thief and he would have been convicted under the authority of our laws. The thief would be sent to prison for a maximum of five years. He would have probably served 2 ½ years and been released on parole. That is how our law works. Instead the victim of the original crime decided to give the thief the death penalty. I know there will be those who decry the current system and claim that because the laws and the courts don’t work like we think they should, citizens must take the law into their own hands. That is frustration and anarchy- not reason or justice. The unfortunate and inevitable bi-product of that thinking is what we saw this time. The punishment (death) did not fit the crime- under Biblical or secular standards. And although I don’t know for sure, I believe the car owner may well be charged with a crime himself because he intentioanlly killed someone who was not threatening his life.

Our social media is alive with examples of this troubling side of our culture. Sometime ago a relative of mine had a purse stolen from a car while it was parked at a sporting event. That event was promptly posted on Facebook with a proper amount of indignation over the loss. It’s no small thing to have your purse, money, credit cards, and ID stolen. I sympathized. But then came the inevitable torrent of comments about how the thief should be killed if it was found out who did it. There must have been twenty similar sentiments expressed, promising deadly violence to anyone who do such a thing. It’s only conjecture on my part, but that type of crime is usually committed by kids- and it made me think about the idea that someone would actually kill a kid for such a crime- something the legal system would never do. Would they really? I know it’s mostly just “big talk”, but that kind of macho big talk  combined with gun ownership only adds to a culture that turns good people into a person who would take a life to save a wallet or an old Chevy. That seems very out of balance to me. Perhaps it is the gun itself. Guns are potentially lethal in every use against another person. They are inherently designed to kill and any training on the use of guns against another person says that if you shoot- you shoot to kill. The idea of just “winging” someone went out with Marshal Dillon. Perhaps these deadly instruments instill in us a sense of entitlement, invincibility, and power that we should not have. Clearly there are cases where the presence of a gun led to a death that need not happen. The Travon Martin case is one that need not have ended in death- just like the car thief death in my town. But for the presence of a gun- no life would have been lost.

I have great sympathy for all involved in the situation in my home town. I have sympathy for the family that lost a son- even though he was a car thief. I have equal sympathy for the man who shot him.  Although I believe he was quite wrong to do what he did, I cannot imagine myself going through life knowing I took a life over such a trivial thing- not to mention the consequences he and his family may yet face under the law. I don’t know what will happen on that matter- but like I said it doesn’t matter for my purposes. What does matter to me is how we can use this incident to rethink some of our cultural characteristics and beliefs about violence, guns, and our most deeply held moral values. We all have some work to do on that.

Thanks for looking in.