Encyclopedia of Law and Economics

Living Edition
| Editors: Alain Marciano, Giovanni Battista Ramello

Lex Talionis

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_18-1

Definition

The classical formulation of the view that the guilty must be punished in exact proportionate to their crimes: “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”

The lex talionis is otherwise known as the view that punishment for crimes must exact “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” It dates at least to the law of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi, and the general idea is cited in modern times by both scholars and laypeople in support of punishment that “fits the crime.” The lex talionis is sometimes used as a justification of retributivist punishment, which requires that the guilty receive their due punishment as a matter of right or justice, although it is less of a justification and more of a statement of the proper target of punishment (the guilty) and degree of punishment (proportionality).

The lex talionisis cited by key retributivists, including its leading proponent, Immanuel Kant, who asked “what kind and what amount of punishment is it that public justice makes its...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

References

  1. Becker GS (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic approach. J Polit Econ 76:169–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blackstone W (1765–1769) Commentaries on the law of England. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Brooks T (2012) Punishment. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  4. Cahill MT (2007) Real retributivism. Wash Univ Law Rev 85:815–870Google Scholar
  5. Davis M (1983) How to make the punishment fit the crime. Ethics 93:726–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis M (1986) Harm and retribution. Philos Public Aff 15:246–266Google Scholar
  7. Holtman S (2009) Justice, mercy, and efficiency. In: White MD (ed) Theoretical foundations of law and economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 119–135Google Scholar
  8. Kant I (1797) The metaphysics of morals (trans: Gregor M). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996 edn)Google Scholar
  9. Nozick R (1981) Philosophical explanations. Belknap, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyCollege of Staten Island/CUNYStaten IslandUSA