Can anyone argue that An Eye For An Eye is unjust?   

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: Mat 5:38 This law is good because it controls evil by the threat of equal evil.

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. Mat 5:39 Again, Jesus is laying an unreasonable standard in front of the people so they realize their inability to measure up.     Society would collapse under the control of evil people if the good people took this literally.

To extrapolate this teaching to how a criminal justice system should work is obviously ludicrous.   

Consider a woman who was raped appearing in a court run by 'turning the other cheek' philosophy.   The judge would simply rule that the woman should submit herself to another round of intercourse with her rapist.   

No, Jesus was not defining the principles of a criminal justice system.   He was defining an attitude of mercy and forgiveness which can only be lived out by the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit.   

So, as was asked earlier: Is An Eye For An Eye unfair?   

Some will argue that accidents happen which result in the loss of an eye or some other physical ability.   Should people who accidentally cause loss or death suffer the same loss or be put to death?   

Let's assume the answer is no.   This is in fact the practical implementation of justice in America today.   

What is the message given when an action that one commits is forgiven or treated lightly by the court?   
It sends a message of carelessness and irresponsibility to the violator and to society at large.   

Consider a situation in which two people are working together and one of the workers accidentally breaks the leg of his co-worker by improperly using a piece of equipment.   

According to An Eye For An Eye policy, the injured worker would have the right to break the leg of his co-worker.   

How many injured people would actually want to inflict the same injury on their violator?   There may be some, but the vast majority of people would be merciful.   

Think about how the act of being merciful would bless the victim and his violator.   
   → Now, the injured person is a better person for showing mercy.   
   → Now the violator is indebted to his victim.   This indebtedness gives him opportunity to bless his victim thereby becoming a better person.   

So we see that there are positive results all around for holding An Eye For An Eye policy of justice.   

Think about how our current criminal justice system works.   
   → the victim is left out of the administration of justice, is possibly violated a second time by the court's decision
   → the violator is given a light sentence by the judge, pays the fine or does the time and feels delivered from their obligation to the victim.   
   → a message is sent to society that accidents are forgivable, and in so encouraging irresponsibility.   

So we see that there are negative results all around for rejecting An Eye For An Eye policy of justice.