Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Jury Duty: "State Requests Vote for Death Penalty" !
@seeker242 How nice that life for you is all so simple, all so black and white.
Life IS simple, especially when it comes to killing vs not killing.
Where do you live?
South Florida USA
So you don't approve of, or appreciate the sacrifice made by soldiers in the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI, WWII, and other military battles which allow you to live in the country you currently reside in?
The soldiers of the revolutionary war were not practicing Buddhists, I am. How they behave has nothing to do with how I behave. What happened over 200 years ago, even 20 or 2 years ago, is irrelevant to my personal behavior.
No, because you live in, and benefit from, a nation that was paid for with those sacrifices. You reap those benefits on a daily basis.
And if "what happened over 200 years ago...is irrelevant to [your] personal behavior", then I guess what happened 2,500 years ago must be even more irrelevant. Either history plays a role in what we are and how we live, or it doesn't.
No, because you live in, and benefit from, a nation that was paid for with those sacrifices. You reap those benefits on a daily basis.
And if "what happened over 200 years ago...is irrelevant to [your] personal behavior", then I guess what happened 2,500 years ago must be even more irrelevant. Either history plays a role in what we are and how we live, or it doesn't.
Buddhist teaching plays the role in a practicing Buddhist's life and it says "Do not kill". Why is that so difficult to understand???...
No, because you live in, and benefit from, a nation that was paid for with those sacrifices. You reap those benefits on a daily basis.
So what? Does that mean I should go out and start killing things? No it does not... It's irrelevant...
How other people behave is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the Buddha taught and what the Buddha taught is "Do not kill".
Why are you defending the act of killing? Are you an anti-Buddhist?...I don't get it...
No, because you live in, and benefit from, a nation that was paid for with those sacrifices. You reap those benefits on a daily basis.
And if "what happened over 200 years ago...is irrelevant to [your] personal behavior", then I guess what happened 2,500 years ago must be even more irrelevant. Either history plays a role in what we are and how we live, or it doesn't.
Buddhist teaching plays the role in a practicing Buddhist's life and it says "Do not kill". Why is that so difficult to understand???...
No, because you live in, and benefit from, a nation that was paid for with those sacrifices. You reap those benefits on a daily basis.
So what? Does that mean I should go out and start killing things? No it does not... It's irrelevant...
How other people behave is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the Buddha taught and what the Buddha taught is "Do not kill".
Why are you defending the act of killing? Are you an anti-Buddhist?...I don't get it...
I know you don't get it, because it appears to me that you see life as black and white. You live in a country where your personal religious freedom is very important to you, but fail to realize how others earned you that personal freedom. Not all countries have much religious freedom.
You are a Buddhist, and that's great. You are also an American. That's part of the fabric of your everyday life, as well. You benefit from it every day. And that takes me back to my post that started this little exchange -- that life is not easy...it has it challenges to maintain balance.
No, because you live in, and benefit from, a nation that was paid for with those sacrifices. You reap those benefits on a daily basis.
And if "what happened over 200 years ago...is irrelevant to [your] personal behavior", then I guess what happened 2,500 years ago must be even more irrelevant. Either history plays a role in what we are and how we live, or it doesn't.
Buddhist teaching plays the role in a practicing Buddhist's life and it says "Do not kill". Why is that so difficult to understand???...
No, because you live in, and benefit from, a nation that was paid for with those sacrifices. You reap those benefits on a daily basis.
So what? Does that mean I should go out and start killing things? No it does not... It's irrelevant...
How other people behave is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the Buddha taught and what the Buddha taught is "Do not kill".
Why are you defending the act of killing? Are you an anti-Buddhist?...I don't get it...
I know you don't get it, because it appears to me that you see life as black and white. You live in a country where your personal religious freedom is very important to you, but fail to realize how others earned you that personal freedom. Not all countries have much religious freedom.
You are a Buddhist, and that's great. You are also an American. That's part of the fabric of your everyday life, as well. You benefit from it every day. And that takes me back to my post that started this little exchange -- that life is not easy...it has it challenges to maintain balance.
When it comes to killing, it IS black and white... "Do not Kill". This is Buddhism. Perhaps for some people the issue of actually following it is difficult or unclear. However, the teaching itself is quite clear, "Do not kill"... For many people, following it is quite easy. You just don't kill anything. Not killing anything is one of the things that provides "Balance", As does following all the other precepts. That is precisely what they are for. I find "not killing" to be quite easy, effortless in fact. Why? Because the instruction is perfectly clear and it says "Do not kill".
To think that it's OK to kill, is the essence of "wrong view"
I don't know that pleading "Buddhist" would get one released from duty. Jurors are required to make their decisions on evidence and arguments presented, not on religious convictions or personal morality. If the state is involved in the case, it may well make that point to recalcitrant jurors. Some arm-twisting may be attempted.
I would let them know I could not in good conscious vote for the death penalty. I use to believe I could, but the more I see about the death sentence there are 2 major things I don't like. 1st it lets the person off easy, once they are put to death they no longer have to live with the crime they committed. 2. Even with today's advances, there has be overwhelming evidence (even "smoking guns"), where they later discovered this or that, that actually indicated someone else did it. (even one time of this it too many IMO). So I could not live with myself being a part of killing a person, much less I would no matter how much "evidence" there is, wonder if they were truly guilty. There are too many variable, even a self admission could be because they for whatever reason (maybe to do with the case, maybe not) think they should be dead.
BTW in the US a life sentence in most case does not truly mean life it means you serve anywhere from 3-25 years, then will go in front of a parole board, which seems to be why some juries will give a sentence of death, because they view the crime so heinous, that they wouldn't ever want that person to have another opportunity to commit such a crime again. I am not sure how multiple life sentences affects things, but I would think that 3 life consecutive sentences would be that the person wouldn't even be eligible for parole for 60 years.
One of the really messed up things in the US we have murders & rapists and other violent criminals, getting early release to make room, only because our prison system is over capacity. Yet they will leave some in prison for 5,10 or more years for simply selling pot (or other none violent offense). I am appalled by this. Something like 80% of our prison population is there because something that does not cause harm to anyone, really, at most it would be harming ones self, but I don't think so. We need a serious readjustment on punishments to fit the crime, side of things, here.
I would let them know I could not in good conscious vote for the death penalty. I use to believe I could, but the more I see about the death sentence there are 2 major things I don't like. 1st it lets the person off easy, once they are put to death they no longer have to live with the crime they committed. 2. Even with today's advances, there has be overwhelming evidence (even "smoking guns"), where they later discovered this or that, that actually indicated someone else did it. (even one time of this it too many IMO). So I could not live with myself being a part of killing a person, much less I would no matter how much "evidence" there is, wonder if they were truly guilty. There are too many variable, even a self admission could be because they for whatever reason (maybe to do with the case, maybe not) think they should be dead.
BTW in the US a life sentence in most case does not truly mean life it means you serve anywhere from 3-25 years, then will go in front of a parole board, which seems to be why some juries will give a sentence of death, because they view the crime so heinous, that they wouldn't ever want that person to have another opportunity to commit such a crime again. I am not sure how multiple life sentences affects things, but I would think that 3 life consecutive sentences would be that the person wouldn't even be eligible for parole for 60 years.
One of the really messed up things in the US we have murders & rapists and other violent criminals, getting early release to make room, only because our prison system is over capacity. Yet they will leave some in prison for 5,10 or more years for simply selling pot (or other none violent offense). I am appalled by this. Something like 80% of our prison population is there because something that does not cause harm to anyone, really, at most it would be harming ones self, but I don't think so. We need a serious readjustment on punishments to fit the crime, side of things, here.
Some points of yours I agree with. I agree that evidence is not always conclusive and had sometimes sent someone to their death or for long sentences when they are not guilty. I also agree that we need to re-look at sentences. In my view, white collar criminals don't need to be in prison. There are other ways they can repay the community. Readjustment of sentences should be a priority in our legal system.
But I disagree that if someone is put to death they are getting off easy because they no longer have to live with their conscience. First, taking a person's life really is the ultimate penalty. Second, many of the people up for the death penalty probably don't have much of a conscience to begin with. They're not the kind of people "we" usually know or have any concept of.
@vinlyn (Short version the ---- lines). I agree with white collar crimes, their could be other things, related to their crime versus simply serve some time in prison.
2nd part, but taking there life leaves no room for anything. Once it is gone it is gone, there is no chance of bringing back an innocent, there is no chance for them to show a conscious, there is no chance for anything once they have been put to death. We can never truly know what is going through someones head whether they feel anything or not (at least I would never presume I do know what someone it thinking). *insert my life experience here (so anyone that doesn't want to read the long version of my point can skip it.) Point being, a person left alone with their self for long periods of time allows for deep reflection, when you have nothing else to do with your time, one tends to examine their life and things they have done. I don't want them imprisoned just to not let them off the hook (I was trying to shorten what I think), but there is a sense that maybe they will figure it out, why whatever it was is wrong, and just maybe they can do something that will ease the suffering of those they inflicted suffering on. If there is reincarnation, then maybe they will have learned the lesson from this life and not repeat it again.
____________________________________________________________________________ *Here is my experience in how no person can every know another's thoughts. When I was hospitalize because I wanted to kill myself, I kept justifying to myself why I should die, how the world would be a better place without me, how my misery would be over (among many other things). The people there kept trying to remind me how selfish it was, and how it would hurt my kids. I can't tell you how many times I would turn their words around on them and justify how much more damaging it was to have me in their lives. I was truly convinced (with help on that) I was just a burden to everyone and worst of all to my kids. So every time someone actually brought them up it, made me more determined to do it (there is of course a lot more to this), and holding on to the was the damaging selfish thing. However, in my moments alone, my kids were indeed the things that prevented me from doing it, but there was no way I was going to admit it to anyone. I still will only admit to the kids. 1st way they prevented was that I insisted my husband to take me to the hospital to begin with, because I didn't want my kids to come in the house and find me. The urge to kill myself was so intense that every knife, sharp item, or kitchen utensil, every glass object, every pill, even walking out on the balcony, I would envisioned if & how I could effectively accomplish it. There was not one moment for 2 days prior to going to the hospital, I didn't think of a plan. I was in a foreign country and had no family or friends to go to, so US hospital was the only place (probably lucky, because I'm fairly certain I would done it, if I could have been out of the presence of my children with all the possibilities). The people reminding me how important they are to me was actually very harmful because when I talked about it I just found more reasons why I should. However when I was alone with myself only could I not let go of them.
Comments
And if "what happened over 200 years ago...is irrelevant to [your] personal behavior", then I guess what happened 2,500 years ago must be even more irrelevant. Either history plays a role in what we are and how we live, or it doesn't.
How other people behave is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the Buddha taught and what the Buddha taught is "Do not kill".
Why are you defending the act of killing? Are you an anti-Buddhist?...I don't get it...
You are a Buddhist, and that's great. You are also an American. That's part of the fabric of your everyday life, as well. You benefit from it every day. And that takes me back to my post that started this little exchange -- that life is not easy...it has it challenges to maintain balance.
To think that it's OK to kill, is the essence of "wrong view"
BTW in the US a life sentence in most case does not truly mean life it means you serve anywhere from 3-25 years, then will go in front of a parole board, which seems to be why some juries will give a sentence of death, because they view the crime so heinous, that they wouldn't ever want that person to have another opportunity to commit such a crime again. I am not sure how multiple life sentences affects things, but I would think that 3 life consecutive sentences would be that the person wouldn't even be eligible for parole for 60 years.
One of the really messed up things in the US we have murders & rapists and other violent criminals, getting early release to make room, only because our prison system is over capacity. Yet they will leave some in prison for 5,10 or more years for simply selling pot (or other none violent offense). I am appalled by this. Something like 80% of our prison population is there because something that does not cause harm to anyone, really, at most it would be harming ones self, but I don't think so. We need a serious readjustment on punishments to fit the crime, side of things, here.
But I disagree that if someone is put to death they are getting off easy because they no longer have to live with their conscience. First, taking a person's life really is the ultimate penalty. Second, many of the people up for the death penalty probably don't have much of a conscience to begin with. They're not the kind of people "we" usually know or have any concept of.
(Short version the ---- lines).
I agree with white collar crimes, their could be other things, related to their crime versus simply serve some time in prison.
2nd part, but taking there life leaves no room for anything. Once it is gone it is gone, there is no chance of bringing back an innocent, there is no chance for them to show a conscious, there is no chance for anything once they have been put to death. We can never truly know what is going through someones head whether they feel anything or not (at least I would never presume I do know what someone it thinking).
*insert my life experience here (so anyone that doesn't want to read the long version of my point can skip it.)
Point being, a person left alone with their self for long periods of time allows for deep reflection, when you have nothing else to do with your time, one tends to examine their life and things they have done. I don't want them imprisoned just to not let them off the hook (I was trying to shorten what I think), but there is a sense that maybe they will figure it out, why whatever it was is wrong, and just maybe they can do something that will ease the suffering of those they inflicted suffering on. If there is reincarnation, then maybe they will have learned the lesson from this life and not repeat it again.
____________________________________________________________________________
*Here is my experience in how no person can every know another's thoughts.
When I was hospitalize because I wanted to kill myself, I kept justifying to myself why I should die, how the world would be a better place without me, how my misery would be over (among many other things). The people there kept trying to remind me how selfish it was, and how it would hurt my kids. I can't tell you how many times I would turn their words around on them and justify how much more damaging it was to have me in their lives.
I was truly convinced (with help on that) I was just a burden to everyone and worst of all to my kids. So every time someone actually brought them up it, made me more determined to do it (there is of course a lot more to this), and holding on to the was the damaging selfish thing. However, in my moments alone, my kids were indeed the things that prevented me from doing it, but there was no way I was going to admit it to anyone. I still will only admit to the kids.
1st way they prevented was that I insisted my husband to take me to the hospital to begin with, because I didn't want my kids to come in the house and find me. The urge to kill myself was so intense that every knife, sharp item, or kitchen utensil, every glass object, every pill, even walking out on the balcony, I would envisioned if & how I could effectively accomplish it. There was not one moment for 2 days prior to going to the hospital, I didn't think of a plan. I was in a foreign country and had no family or friends to go to, so US hospital was the only place (probably lucky, because I'm fairly certain I would done it, if I could have been out of the presence of my children with all the possibilities).
The people reminding me how important they are to me was actually very harmful because when I talked about it I just found more reasons why I should. However when I was alone with myself only could I not let go of them.