I must say that I disagree with the idea of taking matters into your own hands and acting out rages of revenge against someone who has wronged you. Though, I must admit that this is what I desire at times...but not usually. Revenge seems to breed more revenge. If this method was considered justice today people would be serving out their personal revenges freely. I imagine this would build a world of chaotic violence and hatred where people feared being in the presence of others. Or perhaps people would be so scared that they treated everyone with respect and no wrongs would ever be committed. Hmmm. The first recent act of revenge that popped in my head doesn't fully involve humans. When Steve Irwin was killed by a stingray there was an increase of dead stingrays being washed up on beaches. It was believed that people were killing the stingrays as acts of revenge against Irwin's dealth. Even though the revenge was against an animal and not a human it still seems wrong. You wouldn't want me injuring your dear old puppy because some other dog attacked me. So, I say walk away from desires of revenge and let matters be solved in the hands of collective justice. If they get it wrong God will get it right at the pearly gates. Unless it involves animals....in that case I'm not sure who has final say so.

Revenge is as much an emotion as it is an action. Like any emotion, revenge can overcome you to the point where it consumes your entire life. The act of revenge by taking the law into your own hands is something that a person simply cannot help. In the hands of collective justice many people get away with things that they should have otherwise been punished for. I agree, for the most part, that sometimes you can't control your  emotions and as they overcome you, you do something that you would otherwise not normally do. We talked about the death penalty in class on Thursday. This is a form of revenge. The killing of the person for a crime is always revenge and in this case I absolutely agree with it. The death penalty in fact in some cases is not harsh enough which is why it doesn't work to deter crimminals. If the thought of doing a crime can be deterred because you know that your punishment will be terrible then it is absolutely worth it. Odysseus did this in the book when he killed all the suitors. He judged them to be in violation of a crime and killed all of them, I bet nobody ever tried to take over Odysseus' house again. I do think that this style of revenge would work pretty well today. If people knew that you would be strung up from a tree and be castrated they probably would not do whatever crime that would be. Evidence of this can be found in simple human nature. People are scared of lots of thing and are reasonably rational. So if you were going to be tortured for a crime that you commited you would probably weigh your options before you did it.

I agree in the text with taking one's own revenge only because they had no other methods to resolve the problems in ancient Greece. Odysseus felt wronged by the suitors and he needed to do something about it. I do not feel that Odysseus' methods of vigilante would work today in our society. We cannot allow people to take the law in their own hands and take out revenge or else it would be chaos. As with 9/11 I am on the fence if i agree with the desicions being made about war. I think that our country needs to stand up for itself but is killing more people the right answer?

In the Odyssey, Odysseus decides to take revenge against the suitors who were pursuing his wife because he felt they were trying to take control of his world. By todays standards it is obvious that this would definatly not fly, however, I think it is understandable that Odysseus fight to gain back what was rightfully his. There was no way for him to go to "court" against all these men he had to take matters into his own hands. This I believe parallels what George W. Bush did after 9/11. We were attacked, our Penelope's were taken if you will, and Bush fought to gain back what was ours so he "killed the suitors". I completely support the war on terrorism and Bush for what he did. If we were to have sat back and not retaliated we would have been way worse off, and almost certainly been attacked again.

I’m lovin’ it. Have it your way. What can Brown do for you? Just do it. Obey your thirst. Make Seven-Up yours. Aim high. Be all that you can be. Head On – apply directly to the forehead. Most Americans can immediately recognize at least one of these slogans. “Just do it” might conjure an image of Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, or a pair of tennis shoes sporting an embroidered “swoosh”. “Be all that you can be” evokes the painted face of a young soldier in battle dress uniform. Repeat the “Head On” slogan three times and as if by magic, you may instantly draw the ire of all within earshot. Remove advertising slogans from their given contexts, however, and they become empty phrases. Slogans are perpetuated in one of two ways: they are either repeated over and over in paid advertisements, or like many political shibboleths, strike a chord within constituents and gain momentum. The first strategy is employed by corporate giants such as McDonald’s, who launched its “I’m lovin’ it” campaign by incorporating its jingle into a popular Justin Timberlake tune, purchasing the name of a 70-city Destiny’s Child tour (Destiny Fulfilled and Lovin’ It), and followed it up with persistent radio and television commercials. The second mode of catch phrase proliferation relies on its intended audience to relate with, pass on, and thereby empower, the given message. Surely, most Americans could identify (and many identify with) such phrases, known as “gnomes” in public relations vernacular. Cut and run. Tax and spend. Stay the course. Shock and awe. Weak on defense. Family values. Operation Desert Storm. Operation Enduring Freedom. No child left behind. God bless America. These slogans – like those wielded by corporations hawking drugs, clothing, cars, and soft drinks – are intended to sell a brand. In this case, a brand of politics. Unlike Microsoft, Disney, or General Electric, this particular brand has no readily identifiable brand name. And unlike their advertising counterparts, which come packaged with context, political slogans are often separated, though not completely severed, from their original or intended contexts. For example, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea were deliberately dubbed the “Axis of Evil,” a syllogism utilized by the Bush administration in order to rhetorically link the three nations with the Axis Powers of World War II, and to imply cooperation between them. Another deeply ominous and intentionally ambiguous phrase popularized by the administration, “Weapons of Mass Destruction” has already been promoted to its new position as the acronym, “WMD.” It is generally taken to mean nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Ten years ago, “NBC” functioned as a perfectly sufficient acronym, having the desired effect of accurately describing such devices. One could surmise NBC’s replacement has an entirely different effect in mind: fear, perhaps. Interestingly, in many Middle Eastern countries the term “Weapons of Mass Destruction” is used to describe so-called “conventional” arms such as cluster bombs and the Daisy Cutter. The most diabolically effective euphemism employed by the administration has been the “War on Terror,” or its variation, the “War on Terrorism.” So frequently has it been repeated that it has been accepted and absorbed into the American vocabulary without a second thought given to its literal meaning. Terror is an emotion – a state of intense fear. Are we to wage a physical war on an emotion? Terrorism is a tactic – violent or destructive acts committed in order to intimidate a population or government into granting demands. How does one wage war on a maneuver, a concept? Are we also to have wars on the Flying Wedge, the Blitzkrieg, Flanking, and the Pincer Movement? Waging corporeal war on a linguistic abstraction is physically impossible, so the creators of this “War on Terror” have given it a face - and thereby a target for revenge - Osama Bin Laden. The U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq could be seen as state-sponsored vigilantism, in that they were unilateral "police" actions that did not necessarily have the support of the world community. Polls have shown time and again that in the court of public and world opinion, the U.S. has overstepped its boundaries as a political actor. Opinion polls in the U.S. prove that the current administration isn't even representing the interests of its own people, rather it represents the wishes of a tiny minority with its PNAC-engineered goal of global hegemony. As the political landscape shapes up today, we the people are separated from truth by security protocols, media filters, and public relations representatives. We are separated from justice by a farcical judicial system in which Supreme Court judges are appointed by the President and have the ability to interpret the Constitution in any way they see fit. We are separated from representation by special interest groups, the electoral college, and the lack of an efficient recall process when approval ratings are sinking to record lows. President Bush says that a timetable for leaving Iraq would "embolden the terrorists."  I would argue that he has been "emboldened" by his own timetable - he has from now until Inauguration Day in 2009 - and the ability this "War on Terror" has afforded him to dictate and execute policy carte blanche. Other examples of state-sponsored vigilantism are the hanging of Saddam Hussein, Israel's retaliatory strike on Hezbollah in Lebanon, or any such unilateral actions taken by a government that are not condoned by the court of public (or world) opinion. Given the results of state-sponsored vigilantism (hundreds of thousands of lives lost, the so-called "black prison" system, the sacrificing of liberty for security) versus the results of Odysseus' vigilantism, I don't see much of a difference. In the end, we'll get our public hanging either way. It's a lot like traveling - destination: revenge. Would you rather drive your own car, or board a 747 to justice? The car may be more dangerous, but you feel more in control of your destiny. The passengers on the airplane have to agree on a destination, then trust two pilots appointed by the state, er, airline, to get them where they want to go. In the car, you can arrive at precisely the address you mean to, while the plane might only take you within a hundred miles of your final destination, and you'll have to deal with a long layover. Alright, enough of this extended metaphor. Bottom line - Justice, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.  However, a paradigm of a communal justice system that has demonstrated varying degrees of success is the online ranking/reputation system utilized by eBay, Amazon, and others. Read the article at the following URL, compare the online community to a state or national community, and I'm sure you will come away with some valuable insights... (or at the very least, a long-winded metaphor)  http://many.corante.com/archives/2007/01/29/against_welldesigned_reputation_systems_an_argument_for_community_patent.php 

When Odysseus takes his revenge on the suitors, it is not so much out of justice for they do not deserve to die for they have killed no one, but in a manner of war.  To Odysseus the suitors are invaders that need driven out of his “kingdom” and just like when driving out an army, he wants to ensure he won’t be attacked again.  This means he must kill all the suitors.  He was justified not in that justice was upheld, but that he did what he had to do to protect himself and his kingdom.  Had there been a higher authority for Odysseus to plead his case to, he would not have been justified in his actions.  This is exemplified when the gods get involved and Zeus stops his rampage.  The Acts of Revenge by the individual in our day are not justified, because we have a higher authority that we must respect to carry out justice, which sometimes but not always coincides with revenge.

I agree with taking one’s own revenge as it appears in the text for that time period. I believe at that time things just worked that way. It truly was an eye for an eye and justice was carried out in that fashion. Obviously in today’s society carrying out one’s own revenge would not work out as well. Odysseus’s style of justice would not work well today at all. It seems that once a person gives in and goes out and gets revenge all it s going to do is end up with them going to jail. It is not a defense anymore to validate your actions by claiming the other party “started it”. We learn at a young age that it doesn’t matter who starts it, two wrongs don’t make a right. It is a pretty sticky situation to be in however. Most people find it easy to say turn the other cheek but often have trouble actually following what they preach. If they don’t go as far as getting back at their enemy equally, they will often hold a grudge for the rest of their lives no matter how big or little the initial wrong-doing was. The first act of revenge that comes to mind for me occurred earlier in the NFL season when a member of the Tennessee Titans stomped on the face of an opposing player with his cleats. Albert Haynesworth of the Titans said his opponent had given him a cheap shot earlier in the game so when he saw his opponent lying on his back, he kicked his helmet off and stepped on his face. Obviously the act caused a lot of damage, 30 stitches in all. This was his way of getting revenge on his opponent, he didn’t wait for justice to come he, like Odysseus, took matters into his own hand. It didn’t work out as well for Haynesworth who was suspended without pay for 5 games and has an image that will never be repaired. The act obviously was not as harsh as Odysseus slaying all the suitors, but it just goes to show that times have changed and acts of revenge do not go unpunished.    

For me, revenge is something that we human beings shouldn't do. Not only does it cloud our judgement, it also creates a part of us that we don't and shouldn't ever want to see. I totally disagree with taking revenge into one's hands. So what if the justice system, is unfair. If you have to wait a whole time to get justice be it so, because in the end there is one person who can give much more justice rather than revenge. This person is God. I say that people should forgive and forget, because in the end, God will reward you greatly. However, is some scenerios as of that presented in the Odyssey, revenge was something that could not be avoided. I guess it is alright to see what happens when someone takes revenge out on someone else in writing, rather than actually seeing it in life. I suppose that revenge in text is much better, because texts offer us so much of the things we can only dream about, and know won't happen. As for Odysseus's style of revenge, I suppose that it could work today. All you would have to do, is have enemies as dumb as the courters and you can carry your revenge away. As for the occurance of 9/11, I have my very on doubts of as to what we are doing in Iraq. I don't think that we had sufficient enough proof to have gone there in the first place, and I don't think we are doing anything there rather than causing more bloodshed. For me, us being there is like revenge and obviously it is not working because we have be there for almost three years now, and it seems like we're only deploying more and more people everyday.

I do agree with taking revenge into your own hands.  Sometimes you really just cant rely on the justice system to give a punishment that you would think is fair.  We all have different ideas of what is fair and what is not fair and thats why each decision should be left to us.  Along with the fairness question, we alos have to think about different stages of revenge. There is the revenge on an ex-girlfriend for cheating on you with your best friend and then there is also the revenge of killing thestranger that murdered your wife and child.  In a sick way, you can look at the Iraq War as a war of revenge. We went over there after 9-11 and wanted revenge on any Middle Eastern country and Iraq was our main target.  The Greek way would not work for this situation because beacuse the easy to fix the problem would be to sucicide a few of our planes into their buildings and we would never sell ourselves that low.

Of course ancient Greece did not have any federal protection or policing as today.  It was a collection of dictatorial city-states at least when this would have been written.  There was no collective sense of justice to be encated across boundaries or over distances.  It is therefore necessary for there to be vigilante justice or revenge as it is put in the Odyssey.  Without this ability to achieve justice it would be possible for criminals to go about plunderind and doing evil across the whole of Greece without fear of repercussion.  I therefore must agree with Odysseus' act of revenge.  It is necessary for one to show that you can not get away with criminal acts against an individual.  The act of justice would also fall to Odysseus, because it is in his territory that the crime or wrong is being committed.  He is the King of Ithaka and it is therefore is responsiblity to keep the peace in Ithaka as he sees fit.  Since he is watched over by Athena it would be expected that his justice would be on par with divine justice from her wisdom.   Today his brand of justice would not be as easily utilized with the same effect.  It is much easier for one to kill or take revenge on another person then it was in the times of ancient Greece.  In ancient greece one would actually have to look upon the accused and take their justice.  Now it is possible to shoot someone and be done with it and this almost dehumanizes the act.  This makes it much easier to exact revenge without the same consequences of having to face the accused and to some extent makes it easier to take revenge for paltry crimes.  For this reason it is more likely that the revnge taken will vastly exceed the offense committed.  The principle of it could still work today but the methods now available making it unlikely that it would remain justice and may instead become vengence.

One example of a vigilante act is the murder of Hrant Dink, an Armenian-Turkish citizen who criticized the genocide by Turkey against the Armenians in 1915. He was tried and convicted of insulting Turkishness and sentenced to 6 months in prison, suspended. Someone decided to take justice into their own hands and shot him in the street. I disagree with this rogue justice circumventing higher authority in scoiety, and believe collective, "higher" justice is better. If there is not a higher, democratically respected source in society to dispense justice, there is chaos and continual revenge. I believe that while Odysseus' revenge would not fly in today's society, it did fit his society. He had the Gods on his side, and the Gods represent higher Justice in Greece just as courts and law represent higher Justice in modern society. In either society, Gods, God, or a social contract correctly intervene and solve problems, just as deus ex machina does in homer's epics.

Revenge, what is it? I see revenge as seeking justice for a wrongful act. During the times of Ancient Greece, these stories were told to others as a lesson as to what can happen from revenge. They were the guiding light for our judicial system now. Revenge is an attempt to force people into accepting full responsibility for their actions, unlike our current system. There are so many examples of this that I really don't know where to begin. As mentioned in some other blogs, the acts of shootings by kids or gangs is a big one. Just like "back in the day" they are drawn out, brutal, and plublicly known (whether verbally alone such as Odysseus' time did or through the media as OJ Simpson did). Therefore, Odysseus' style of revenge is already being demonstrated today because they are essentially the same. This leads me obviously to the conclusion that revenge is no different now then it was back then. As mentioned in class today I agree with our form of revenge (capital punishment), but only with exceptions. The exceptions that I think, I rather would not like to share because of all the anger that it brings about in people (demonstrated today). But I feel this way because I have family members that work in the Department of Corrections, so my views are harsher due to the fact of knowing a lot of the criminal's stories. As for Odysseus, I think that he is a hero. He did what he thought best, what he knew to do, and what he grew up around. I think he is justified. And just a little question to leave you with...."Isn't it ironic how we as a society choose to determine who has the ability of self control and make excuses for those that do not?"

I think that in the text, when Odysseus comes home and takes care of the suitors the way he does, he is justifiable in doing so.  I think, in those times, that if you went against the king you also went against the law.  What I mean by this is that Odysseus was the rightful ruler to that land, and the suitors just danced around like idiots acting like there was no law because the king was gone and presumed dead, even though he wasn't.  I think that Odysseus was right when he took his own  revenge on the suitors.  Imagine that you were him: you have unwanted guests on your property constantly, using up all of your rightful belongings, you have men trying to court your wife even though she wants nothing to do with re-marriage, your son, the prince, is being disgraced and put down, they are even trying to kill him; if i were Odysseus, I would have been pretty pissed and would have taken the law into my own hands (even though the king usually is the law) and I would have hunted down and dealt with these ungracious men who were attempting murder themselves--one act of vigilante justice I can remember is something i read in my local paper back home during break; it had to do with a driver rear-ending another driver and taking off, a hit and run, but instead of calling the police, the driver that got hit caught up with the initial driver (when he was stopped somewhere, a gas-station I think), and busted the crap out of his car with a crowbar; eventually the police showed up and arrested both the guys, the one for hit and run and the other for destruction of property or something like that; I think that the initial driver that got hit went a little overboard when he hunted down the other guy and busted up his car, but I think this is why it it hard to define when vigilante justice is justifiable--if Odysseus tried his style of revenge today he would probably be sitting in the underworld with the rest of the suitors because he would get the chair for murder; I think that the public system today prevents many from trying acts of vigilante justice, because, more often than not, the amount of revenge they dish out is going to be cancelled out by the concept of being charged and put in jail for what they have done in revenge

I disagree with the idea of revenge as source of policing as used throughout the Odyssey.  Whenever a man or a family member was wrong, a war, like the Trojan, or a death resulted.  The man who committed this act of revenge would then be killed by someone seeking revenge for the man he killed.  Here the cycle never ends.  The really isn't any threat to defer people from wanting to commit acts against others except the possibility of revenge and if the men fight, the death is honerable because the man died in battle, there is nothing greater.  Today (Thursday) on the Dr. Phil show, a 20 something woman was there to face her mother's murderer face to face for the first time in 20 years and he happened to be her father.  Now in Odysseus's style, the man would have been killed in revenge by this woman's family and then perhaps someone from his family would take his revenge and kill his murderer.  This would result in innumerable deaths.  Today's punishment system works better in that no more people died for the sake of revenge.  However, this man was set free and now this young woman has to fear her father could kill her and her family like he killed her mother.  This is an unsettling thought.  This man killed a human, was sent to prison and now that his sentence is up he is walking around with the rest of us.  Many criminals who are released from prison return because they commit more crimes.  These statistics almost seem like revenge taken by the government by either never allowing prisoners to leave or by exercising the death penalty would make every day life safer.

I don't really agree with the Greek philosophy of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".  The whole idea seems barbaric in a sense.  I think it may have worked in ancient Greek times, but society has evolved since then, thus our system of revenge-seeking needed to change as well.  I think that if people took matters into their own hands everything would be a little more chaotic.  For example, take the last few books of The Odyssey.  When Odysseus comes home he kills a lot of people - simply because they "dishonored" him.  That's completely over the top and unnecessary.  I remember reading an article in the paper about a man that was being charged with murder.  His young daughter had been raped and murdered, and he took it upon himself to find the man who had killed his daughter, and kill him.  I am in no way defending the rapist/killer, but I do think that the father should have left everything up with the authorities.  The murderer would have likely gotten what he deserved anyway, and the father would not be in trouble with the law.  Things are less “messy” when there are policies, justice is carried out more swiftly and efficiently, and it is much more humanistic than just killing anyone who pisses you off - like Odysseus often did. 

 I think that the law then in ancient Greece and for Odysseus was the Gods, and that is entirely different from our "Democrazy" in the U.S. right now. Odysseus could get away with revenge the way he does in the Odyssey due to the fact the worship for the gods was the over ruling government at hand. Today, there is very mildly seperation from church and state, which makes a big difference from society in ancient Greece. On thing I can think of is how recently there were protests at funerals. In a way these were works of revenge by going against the homosexual community in a defensive way. The curators of these protests may have thought they were guided by God, but that behavior is not accepted by the majority. Maybe being guided by a god for an act of revenge was thought of as righteous or plightful during Odysseus's time it is not acceptable now.

I do agree with taking one’s own revenge in the Odyssey because of the nature of the “crime.”  The suitors did not take into consideration any laws against trespassing when they chose to move into Odysseus’ palace with Penelope, therefore the act of revenge that Odysseus and Telemachus commit against the suitors is somewhat justified.  Since there is no federal protection in ancient Greece there is no way of seeking justice when one is wronged against which is why I believe that taking a matter such as this into one’s own hands is justified by the lack of authority. Although this is not a realistic example of a vigilant act there is an episode of The Simpsons in which Marge is mugged.  After the crime she is fearful to leave her home until she becomes interested in lifting weights.  She gradually becomes stronger and one day runs into the same man who mugged her months earlier.  Marge, now stronger and more confident, beats the thief up and “catches her own criminal.”  Marge took this situation into her own hands because the police force was incompetent and doing little to catch the thief and bring him to justice.  In this sense I do agree with her actions because the police were not doing much to try to find or prosecute the villain.  I do not think that Odysseus’s way of revenge would work better today because the crime he commits against the suitors (murder) is far greater then their trespassing and stealing.  

Revenge takes place in many different forms throughout the Odyssey.  Odysseus putting justice to the suitors is the biggest revenge throughout the novel.  While Odysseus definitely has a right to be angry about the suitors taking over his house, eating his food and bothering his wife and son for years, the extreme nature of his punishment to the suitors in my opinion was not justified.  I'm not sure what else he could have done to put justice to the suitors, but what he did was cruel.  Today we have courts to decide punishment for people who are in the wrong, but sometimes people still feel that taking justice into their own hands is the only way to deal with it.  In some cases it is apparent that our courts and justice systems do not always prosecute the guilty people and in some cases innocent people are wrongly prosecuted, but today we need this system.  I feel that if we had no set limits for punishment of criminals and people started to take justice into their own hands, everything would get out of control.  One example of this happening now is wars between gangs.  Sometimes these wars are never ending and more and more people end up injured or killed.  Many of these killings may be justified, but it is not up to people to decide what action to take against criminals, it is up to the courts.  If everyone was able to avenge a wrong doing by someone else people would be never ending trying to hurt each other.  Overall, I feel that Odysseus’s style of revenge would not work in our society today, because while sometimes taking revenge on someone would be completely justified, I feel that people today would take the revenge too far.

Ancient Greece had no sort of policing being done. Many of these stories are about war,blood, murder and revenge. It seems as though these people felt like they had no limits. If they have no limits then why shouldn't they get revenge if they feel it was needed. I know that sometimes I do things wrong that I could never get caught for. Lets fast forward to the yeat 2007. We have plenty of police officers, judges, lawyers, courts and jails to try and lead us away from wrong behaviors. Guess what, your jails are over crowded. People are going to do these things no matter what the cost. I believe thet will continue to be this way because that is just how some humans are. I would never agree with taking revenge on someone. But things were very very differnt back then, Especially for guys, they would not want to lose respect or dignity because someone got the best of them. Now and days there is so much b.s. that happens in the justice system that sometime I wonder why people even rely on such a system. For example, a kid I went to high school with got caught TWICE for driving under the influence of alcohol. The second time he even hot an elderly woman. His parents are rich and they hired a gret lawyer. All he got was a slap of the wrist and a couple hours of community service. Honestly I wish we were back in ancient times and there was a Highway god that zapped dumb drivers off of the road because if you ask me, he has no right to be driving today.

I believe that the justice back then was the gods.  Though they did not have any type of policing or "enforcer", they did have the gods who often times tricked them or punished them if they did something wrong... (or at least the people believed it was the gods that punished them, but as we see in the Odyssey it's mostly human stupidity or error that leads to their punishment)  I believe it was acceptable in their times to take matters into their own hands because that is the only style of justice they had.  Yes we learned that the men had girls on the side, but back then it was one thing to sleep with a mistress, and another to sleep with a married woman.  One good example of a vigilant act was the plane that did not hit its intended target on 9/11.  Though the brave passengers did not survive the crash, they took matters into their own hands and did not allow the terrorists to hit their intended target.  Though it was a horrible and devistating loss to everyone, the people on that plane sacrificed their lives for the good others.  However, I do not believe revenge like Odysseus' style is acceptable or appropriate.  Though I am not saying adultery is right or wrong, and yes I am aware that Penelope never did commit adulter, but killing others for this is inhumane and unjustice. The person committing this act is the one truely sick, and not the wooers.

I don't think taking one's own revenge was effective then and nor do I think it would be effective in today's society. In Ancient Greece, because there was no jusitice system as we have today, people felt like it was pretty much up to them to take their own revenge. And since there was no system, who was there to limit the amount of revenge one person come take upon another and who was to judge how much revenge should be taken over one situation and when that person should just move on. Nowadays, I think it would be even worse if we still operated in that manner. We have a justice system to add a bid more fairness. Also the justice systems acts a third party and is suposed to remain neutral and unbiased in order to place punishment appropriately. But then again the problem comes in when our justice system is not always a correct one. How many times has a guilty person been let go and how many times has an innocent person been found as guilty. No matter whether letting people take actions in their own hands or leaving it to a third party there will always be flaws unless there are clear witness present. A more general example is all the school shooting that take place. Most of the time the shooter is a child taking revenge because he was teased or picked on to the point of wanting to kill. In result of that some many innocent lives are taken. If we still worked in the way that was used in Ancient Greece, the same would be the case. We would have a repetitive cycle of revenge and innocent people suffering, and though not as extreme but like when the gods would be displeased and decide to end the would in flood/fire, restoring it to it's primal state.

Revenge is a hard topic to form an opinion about, being that it’s easy to say that we don’t agree with it when the revenge would be taken on us, but what about when we want revenge for something someone has done to us?  It’s easy to aquire a double standard on the issue of revenge.  Revenge within the Greek Mythological system was a recurring theme, driving much of their lives and actions, and had an immeasurable effect on the final outcomes of stories.  We spoke in class of Poseidon’s repeated attempts to seek his revenge (of his son’s eye) on Odysseus.  Each time he got some revenge, he wanted more.  This I think it the hardest thing about revenge.  Often, people cannot be satisfied.  How much punishment is enough?  Appropriate?  Deserved?  Is the person who feels that he was wronged the right person to determine this?  So, I might be going a little too far back to be considered “recent” but being that there’s a new book about it bringing it all up again, I’m going with the OJ Simpson situation.  Yeah, I’m going there.  So, the way I see it, Nicole’s family thought he was guilty from the beginning.  A vast majority of people did after the first long, drawn out, public trial.  But as we all know, he walked away with no real punishment.  This is where, as her sister, kid, or parent, I would be ready for some revenge.  That’s why I think this is a good example to talk about.  If he killed her (which it’s not my right to say), then he deserved to be punished.  Our system of justice however failed in the case of the Browns (Nicole Brown Simpson’s family).  They didn’t bring anyone to justice, they didn’t accomplish much of anything.  So let’s imagine for a second that you are her sister.  You’re sure that he was the killer, and now he’s going free.  Then, months later they go back and back track, take back their words, and give him a fine.  A fine to a former professional football player is equal to a small slap on the wrist.  As the sister, how do I feel about this?  I sure don’t feel like him losing a little money is equal to me losing my sister!  So at this point, what do I do? Well, if I were a Greek goddess, I’d find a way to kill them off, or make their life a living hell, at least.  So in today’s age, I’d kill him, or maybe someone close to him (a family member or lover?).  This is a hard situation to discuss the matters-in-your-own-hands vs. collective justice idea.  Because in this case, our collective justice clearly failed, I mean for Pete’s sake he wrote a book about how he’d do it and get away with it…if that’s not a slap in the face, I don’t know what is.  So, if our system fails, is it better that we handle things on our own?  Should her family have gotten together and found a way to get back at him?  Well, I think the best way to answer that is to say go back, look at how it worked in the Greek world.  Did it work for them?  Not really.  There were always people seeking revenge.  Some people got what was coming to them, some didn’t.  Much like our system, only with much more violence, greed, pain.  So, I guess it’s safe to say I think a collective justice system, though imperfect, is the better way to go.  There will be mistakes, people will get away with it (which also happened in Greek mythology).  Systems will always be flawed, but I think a world in which we decide what punishment is accurate for the people around us would be unsuccessful.  We are simply unable to separate our emotions from our decisions, so we would be unable to punish people at a certain level without prejudice.  This is why our current system is better.

“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”  This quote says it all, if people everywhere just started taking their own revenge whenever someone did them injustice, our world would be utter and complete chaos.  How many times a day does just a random person either cut you off or said something that hurts you?  If people acted on instinct and took it out on others, our society would be in shambles.  Having a justice system is much better for the 21st century.  Compared to people living in Odysseus's time, people today are a lot more stressed out and sensitive about their surroundings.  This leads to more tension between individuals and would lead to more revenge-like behavior.  A few months ago, there was a tragedy in Pennsylvania (I think) about a man killing a school full of Amish students.  His reasoning was because of something that had happened to him when he was a child.  This completely sickened me.  First of all, why is this man taking his frustrations out on innocent children who weren’t even around at the time?  But this is what revenge and anger do to people; it makes a person punish anyone who is in their path.  This brought sorrow to an entire community; this is why the justice system is a better way to go about solving problems.