We lived in Brooklyn for a couple of years and shortly after moving there, I witnessed what would become an all too familiar scenario play out between two drivers, each angry at one another. One car was blocking the other, but it doesn’t matter; what ensued was a verbal battle complete with heavy, quintessential east coast accents, making it all the more . . . well . . . Brooklyn.
“Go fuck yourself!”
“No, YOU go fuck YOURself!”
“Oh yeah, ASSHOLE? Fuck yourself AND your mother!”
This exchange of verbal wounds carried on for several minutes until other drivers had had enough and convinced the men to shut up and move along.
The entrenched polarity and division in this country that makes up the continuous news cycle, often brings this common city life encounter to mind. On a surface level, these two were expressing anger and resentment, but beneath that, was the hope to inflict a wound—a sting to lessen the sting one just received. I doubt either of them drove away feeling healed or vindicated by their wound-exchanging. (Although maybe, had the insults been more creative.)
Over the last week or so, I’ve come across a few news articles where people promoted the concept of “an eye for an eye,” the ancient (key word) doctrine of lex talionis inscribed in stone around 1755-1750 B.C.E. by Hammurabi, the Babylonian king. These five little words are a succinct and catchy soundbite from a deeply retributive, class based society of early human history. Sound familiar? Given its influence since its discovery in 1901, the Code of Hammurabi has imbedded itself into our culture and society. There are replicas and references displayed across the U.S. including in the nation’s capitol, the U.N. building in NYC, and in the U.S. Supreme Court building.
While one of its underlying principles is the presumption of innocence, many of the punishments decreed in the code were gruesome, barbaric, and bizarre. For instance, if an accuser couldn’t produce hard evidence of the crime, they themselves were punished, even executed. Children were also punished for the acts of their parents. Think of how often we run with a tiny piece from a larger context—cherry pick, if you will—because it suits a belief system, whereas if we stood back and took in the full picture, we might think differently (goodness, anything but that).
I can appreciate the Code of Hammurabi for its historical significance, but perhaps it’s due for retirement. I prefer to think of “an eye for an eye,” as a way to restore balance and peace—the very things taken by a crime. Revenge or retaliation fail to do this. It simply creates another wound, complete with its own ripple effect, separate from the first one. Tit-for-tat. Now we’ve got two gaping wounds. Is there peace? I doubt it. How could there be with double the trauma?
Whether it’s playing out in prisons, war-torn countries, or on a street over a parking space, retribution perpetuates a cycle. And I get it—making peace isn’t easy. So many things are wrapped up in it: history, pride, ego, and so on; plus, it requires a good amount of emotional strength and digging into deep places we’d rather leave well enough alone. It can be uncomfortable, but growth requires a larger comfort zone. Somewhere along the way we’ll probably stumble upon empathy, even for the person who wounded us. If we can understand the impact a wound has on ourselves, we should be able to recognize that others experience the impact of a wound in the same way, which means they probably will respond similarly, too.
Has retribution been shown to bring peace? Studies have revealed that families of murder victims rarely received closure (whatever that entails for someone) by the execution of the perpetrator.1 What if you were able to talk to the perpetrator? Ask them questions or hear their story? Oftentimes, judges ban theses communications (for good reason in many cases) but even when both sides want to interact. However, there are still countless stories of individuals finding peace—and forgiveness—through conversations with the offender. In part, it’s the idea behind Restorative Justice:
At its core, restorative justice defines “justice” in a radically different way than conventional criminal justice responses. Rather than justice as “punishment,” restorative justice conceives of justice as “repair” to the harm caused by crime and conflict. Understanding and responding to the needs of each involved party and the broader community is central to the collective creation of a just outcome.
Can I go out on a limb here and say that most of us are typically seeking ways in which to evolve into a more conscious being? You know, all that inner growth mumbo jumbo? When we’re living on the ground floor of our consciousness, we only see what’s immediately in front of us—the things we base our decisions on. But when we allow ourselves to ascend a little higher in our consciousness and view things from a higher vantage point, we see a more complete picture. An entirely different perspective. It’d be like taking the angry drivers off the busy, noisy, dangerous streets of a sweltering city and place them each on their own quiet, calm upper floor of a skyscraper. There’s so much more to take in when removed from the chaos of the streets below. Viewing the Code of Hammurabi in its larger context allows us to honor it’s history without getting trapped by it, and to discern its true relevance for our modern society.
By no means do I always operate from these higher levels, but I am trying when possible. And the more I make these conscious mind shifts, the easier it is to find a little peace and perspective. In fact, I’ve discovered I have no other choice because the alternative is becoming less and less sustainable. I think it’s about grace, too, and understanding that each human is more than the worst thing they’ve ever done. If we can know that about ourselves, can’t we accept that about others?
Armour, M. P. and Umbreit, M.S. (2007). The Ultimate Penal Sanction and "Closure" for Survivors of Homicide Victims. Marquette Law Review. Vol. 91 No. 17.