The earliest known use of the principle appears in the Code of Hammurabi, which predates the writing of the Hebrew Bible but not necessarily oral traditions.
[2] The term lex talionis does not always refer to literal eye-for-an-eye codes of justice (see mirror punishment), but rather applies to the broader class of legal systems that formulate penalties for specific crimes, which are thought to be fitting in their severity.
[5] Legal codes following the principle of lex talionis have one thing in common - prescribed 'fitting' counter punishment for a felony.
[6] Various ideas regarding the origins of this law exist, but a common one is that it developed as early civilizations grew and a less well-established system for retribution of wrongs, feuds and vendettas, threatened the social fabric.
Babylonian law put a limit on such actions, restricting the retribution to be no worse than the crime, as long as victim and offender occupied the same status in society.
[11][non-primary source needed] It is not specified whether the victim, accused, or judge had the authority to choose kofer in place of bodily punishment.
22:27 "A bull, sheep or goat, when it is born shall remain under its mother, and from the eighth day..." An English translation of Exodus 21:22-24 states: "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
As in the case of the Babylonian lex talionis, ethical Judaism and humane Jewish jurisprudence replaces the peshat (literal meaning) of the written Torah.
[15] Pasachoff and Littman point to the reinterpretation of the lex talionis as an example of the ability of Pharisaic Judaism to "adapt to changing social and intellectual ideas.
The Oral Law explains, based upon the biblical verses, that the Bible mandates a sophisticated five-part monetary form of compensation, consisting of payment for "Damages, Pain, Medical Expenses, Incapacitation, and Mental Anguish" — which underlies many modern legal codes.
Numbers 35:9–30 discusses the only form of remotely reciprocal justice not carried out directly by the court, where, under very limited circumstances, someone found guilty of negligent manslaughter may be killed by a relative of the deceased who takes on the role of "redeemer of blood".
Regarding reciprocal justice by court, however, the Torah states that punishments serve to remove dangerous elements from society ("…and you shall eliminate the evil from your midst"[20]) and to deter potential criminals from violating the law ("And the rest shall hear and be daunted, and they shall no longer commit anything like this evil deed in your midst"[27]).
The Torah makes no distinction between whether or not the potential object of hatred or a grudge has been brought to justice, and all people are taught to love their fellow Israelites.
[28] In Exodus 21, as in the Code of Hammurabi, the concept of reciprocal justice seemingly applies to social equals; the statement of reciprocal justice "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe"[29] is followed by an example of a different law: if a slave-owner blinds the eye or knocks out the tooth of a slave, the slave is freed but the owner pays no other consequence.
"[30] Classical texts advocating the retributive view include Cicero's De Legibus, written in the 1st century BC.
[36] The phrase "an eye for an eye makes the (whole) world blind" and other similar phrases has been conveyed by, but not limited to George Perry Graham (1914) on capital punishment debate argument,[38] Louis Fischer (1951) describing philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi,[39] and Martin Luther King Jr. (1958) in the context of racial violence.