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.
Member poll on captial punishment.
Jason
God EmperorArrakis Moderator
Everyone,
As suggested by Simon, here is a member poll on captial punishment.
Sincerely,
Jason
As suggested by Simon, here is a member poll on captial punishment.
Sincerely,
Jason
0
Comments
If Capital Punishment were put to a vote in this Country, or merely my State, I'd vote against it.
I voted for, "I believe that capital punishment is never morally acceptable AND I am against it based upon other criteria." The first reason is that I can find no moral arguement for the death penalty that does not conflict with my morals, and in particular, the first precept. I am also against the death penalty because of certain factors that are unrelated to whether it is or isn't "moral". For example, I have seen research that suggests capital punishment does not, in fact, work as a deterrent. I have also seen cases where an innocent person has been sentenced to death. I think that it is absolutely unacceptable that even one innocent person has lost not only their freedom, but their life to our "justice" system. Human error should always be a concern when it comes to our court systems, and since any system is not infallible, we should allow for that fact when we consider whether execuations are really a viable and appropriate means of punishment. As for the whole "jails are full" arguement, I would favor decriminalizing certain drug offenses, as well as abolish certain mandatory sentences, and that right there would make room for violent offenders. I personally believe that drug use is more of a health issue than a criminal issue, and to be honest, I think that treatment is a much better option than harsh jail sentences. I think that those should be reserved for heavy pushers and dealers, but not for simple use or possession. All in all, those are just some of my reasons for voting the way that I did.
Sincerely,
Jason
So your morals are to be the standard for a Nation, or would you accept a government using the death penalty if it was acceptable to the majority of their people?
-what is the appropriate response to dealing with murderers
-what is the purpose of punishment for same?
I would say that in the end, that is something that you have to figure out on your own. My belief is that, ideally, everyone should look at all the options, and then weigh those options against their own convictions. That is not always easy, however, considering all of the circumstances. A person who has had a family member that was raped and murdered, for example, will potentially have a lot of anger towards that individual. As such, the death penalty might seem like an appropriate punishment (i.e. an eye for an eye).
Nevertheless, as a Buddhist, I am encouraged to limit my actions that are based upon greed, anger, and delusion while cultivating actions that are based upon non-greed, non-harming, and wisdom. I certainly do not want violent criminals running around free and able to commit the same crimes again. Therefore, from that perspective, I would say that life in prison seems like a more appropriate punishment. That is only from my perspective, however. Other people with other views and beliefs will not see it the same way.
Jason
It should, perhaps, be noticed how appalling our prison systems are. If given the choice, I might prefer death! From my own ethical position, I am also a strong advocate of reforming prisons so that those who have to be kept away from the rest for the greater safety of the majority or the vulnerable should be humane.
Of course, this position arises from my belief that the duty of the state is to protect its citizens, all of them, including criminals. I am also convinced that a harsh, 'punishing' prison regime leads to more effective criminality rather than to rehabilitation, which, I submit, is a crucial aspect of the system: returning the offender to a position where they can be, once again, a useful and ethical member of society.
A) People's morals influence their decisions, and it is foolish to think otherwise. For my own part, I am committing myself to what I believe in, and voting accordingly.
Jason
I completely agree with you that the prison system needs to be reformed, because in my opinion, many of the correctional facilities are not only out-dated, but the treatment of inmates borders on being inhumane.
Jason
Thank you!
I agree completely with both A & B! I would add that voting isn't the only method of expressing support and to use as many as posssilbe is a most compassionate approach, IMHO.
You have the right to make such a choice for yourself alone. Prisons should be humane and secure; no more or no less. I would agree with you both that many are falling short in humane conditions and most are not truly secure. It seems that administration(s) seems to be unable to balance the those two apsects.
As I have said before, killing and death are awful facts of samsara that have the potential to arise because there are sentient beings whose minds are defiled by greed, hatred, and delusion. Besides removing oneself from the cycle of birth and death altogether, there are worldly solutions to these problems, but these solutions can merely limit the potential harm to other sentient being.
Essentially, besides escaping samsara, there are no perfect answers or solutions. As sentient beings with a fair amount of greed, hatred, and delusion ourselves, I think that we just have to do our best to make the right decisions based upon our own convictions and the information that we have available to us. Sadly, this is a difficult subject to tackle, and there are no easy solutions.
Jason
That is basically because it crudely cuts off the opportunity for something good to result from prior bad actions, and thereby makes the creation of any real "moral" lesson for the perpetrating individuals unlikely or incomplete. Morality is more of a field than it is a fence.
Capital punishment is never morally acceptable. That's my belief. However, that is not to say that I would be opposed to every single instance of capital punishment. There are such crimes that are really more heinous than most egregiously loathsome crimes, such as the assasination of a well-beloved Head of State, especially one elected by the people. If Lee Harvey Oswald had lived, I would have wanted his head to roll, just as a way for the nation to have some better kind of closure. But I would not argue that the Lord's work was being done, either.
If someone bloodily murdered several members of my family and did really abominable things to them beforehand, I'd also be in favor of the death penalty for the proven guilty person. A form of just compensation, I would argue, was being meted out. But I would not say that the state's act of killing the murderer was good and morally acceptable. Nay, only something that had to be done.
However, in both these instances, PERHAPS a greater good is being done to the fabric of society than to let the perpetrator "live," as it were.
Justice is one thing and morality quite another. Justice is to reward the good and to punish those who do harm, whereas morality has a depth of nuances and an eternity to come to "final" conclusions.
A repentant person in prison can be a boon to the whole world, and sparing the life of someone who is truly remorseful and humbled, and therefore open to amendment of life, is an enterprise well worth affirming.
Well, here's my first attempt at explicating my feelings on this. I do, however, think that capital punishment is, in MOST cases practiced today, cruel and unusual punishment.
That is an interesting perspective. As a matter of fact, I wanted to add two more options, one being, "I believe that capital punishment is never morally acceptable BUT I am for it based upon other criteria," and the other, "I believe that capital punishment is morally acceptable BUT I am against it based upon other criteria". However, the edit function would not allow me to add more. It is definitely hard to make a poll that covers all of the possible views and opinions that people might have.
Jason
Then you give acceptable circumstances when your family is involved in the criminal act and the act is so aggravating that capital punishment is ok but still not moral………….
Justice is the administration of law. It should be just (that word again!), fair, and impartial. Justice (ideally) should be the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action. Justice has no aspect of reward for the good and punishment for the bad. Justice is administration of LAW; if you don’t break the law you don’t have to deal with the administration of justice, but you aren’t getting a reward for good behavior!
Law is a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority, and considered as a means of redressing wrongs. Are laws based on societal ethics and current morals of the community passing or enacting the laws? Doesn’t that make most laws extensions of morals?
Killing under Buddhism is to be avoided. Not a good thing; contributes to bad rebirth, etc. Killing another in most circumstances is against the law.
We are in this world, samsara, and we are here because our karma dictates that this is where we should be. Samsara is suffering, all is not happy, pretty, clean and perfect. There is another place for perfection, but we are there yet. We are here to suffer and to learn and advance along the path to end that suffering. Part of our suffering is to deal with issues were others have no problem with killing either for their own reasons or the State’s ends. We suffer because of that; that is our lot to learn to deal with that.
It was never said that this world, samsara would all experience release and Awaken as one body. If we progress this samsara will remain as a place where others can work on advancing. Perhaps, capital punishment, war, violence will never end here in this world. If it did, would it still be the challenge to others to purify and perfect themselves and advance?
I KNOW in ALL cases that capital punishment is killing. Period.
Laws can be unjust and have historically been so. Therefore, I use the Platonic notion of justice: Justice as the human enterprise par excellence. Surely, as is much quoted in literature, The Law is [often] an Ass. Justice is to give each what belongs to him or her, whether that be goods, praise, punishments, or blame. I learned that from Plato and with Plato and Socrates I'll stay.
And what about Lycurgus? In his Laws (the Rhetras) the writing down of the Laws was expressly forbidden, as the people were to embody the law with the very fabric of their daily life.
And yes, just and conscientious behaviour is rewarded, first and foremost as its own reward and secondarily in the beneficient effect it has on the community both near and far.
I wouldn't go quite so far as all that. It all depends on the forces governing the legislative body and how close they are to the pulse of the people and the major, true social issues of the times. If they are just in there making laws for a certain client base, those laws should be held a bit suspect. As for redressing wrongs, the courts play the most important role in that.
That said, what I was trying to say was that although I believe Capital Punishment to be completely indefensible, the field of life is very large —and thereby more than just a bit vague when a lot of awful stuff gets thrown at us. Sometimes we just can't be so derned prescriptive about all our high ideals and should graciously allow other people to eek out their own solutions.
Darn it, sometimes people do such mean things that it would be wrong to hold some badly hurt fellow's face down in the dirt to keep him from doing or saying what every fibre of his being is driving him towards. At that point, Lofty Notions against the Death Penalty Ever being Carried Out seem cruel in their own way. Illiberal liberalism, I believe it's called.
In other words, I believe it's good to have sound principles, but sometimes expediency trumps a generally-followed principle. And yes, Capital Punishment for really egregious, heinous crimes might be just what's called for, sometimes. However, if a society believes that Capital Punishment is unquestionably wrong and immoral, I'd think there'd be very little of it.
People do things that they know to be wrong every day, and for good reasons, too. Which is a greater wrong, to let your child die of hunger when you have no food, no money, or friends, or to steal food for her?
Which is a greater wrong, to take the life of a depraved, compassionless villain, or, by advocating for his life, to leave undressed the wounds of the families whose loved ones he's so mercilessly taken from them?
THESE ARE NOT JUST SIMPLE MATHEMATICAL EQUATIONS. Emotions are involved here too.
If we want a criminal justice system, we have to pay for it either way. I would rather my tax dollars go to things like keeping criminals alive in prison than to go towards paying for the state to murder them.
Jason
There are many issues involved here. To say that something is unquestionably morally indefensible in most particulars is not quite to say that all instances of this act should be abolished.
Here's an interesting scenario:
Some bad people have engineered a highly contagious plague virus that imparts severe lunacy and some dementia within 48 hours to anyone whose system succumbs to it. There is no immunity, and quarantine seems to be the only way to deal with it. The virus is not really life-threatening, just mentally incapacitating for the rest of ones life.
However, in the course of trying to quarantine those afflicted, there are some who are so severely mentally narrowed, yet honed in an almost genius-way, that they will inexorably find a way to get back "home." Now, quarantine won't work on them, so they are told that extreme measures will have to be taken should they come back again. Once again, they are deported to a maximum security quarantined site, but in short time they force their way back "home" again. It turns out that there's no way to deal with this now growing problem but to "get rid" of that strain of folks ("repeat offenders").
In the end, will not expediency carry the day? I know that this is a very gruesome scenario, but sometimes the correct choice is not a morally good one.
The real issue for me with this Capital Punishment debate is that some people judge others as "bad" or as "unworthy of life." This is just plain mean spiritual disease. And it's shocking that many teachers of some religious dogmas are caught up in this lie.
Your straw man example falls when you realise that it is precisely the argument used to justify the Final Solution. The argument was that one particular group of people was contaminating the whole population. The logical decision was presented as separating this group from the general population and, ultimately, to eliminate them.
The only arguments that I can find which could possibly support capital punishment are:
* the "eye for an eye". lex talionis, approach;
* the offender will not reoffend;
* it satisfies a desire for revenge;
* it is cheaper than prison.
Arguments about deterrence fall at the first statistical hurdle. There is no evidence to support the notion. Over 200 years ago, Voltaire made fun of the idea by citing the execution of an admiral "pour encourager les autres".
P.S. I notice that no one has voted for the first choice. Would you not do so, Nirvy, if you believe that there are circumstances where it could be justified?
And, no, I do not believe that capital punishment is morally acceptable in certain situations. I believe, though, that there may arise situations in which capital punishment may be expedient. Moral guilt would still be incurred, however. One simply cannot act in a "selfish" way without consequences. I guess what I'm trying to say is that our wrong or selfish actions may be explained, but cannot rightly be justified.
I said above, and I repeat, if a society believes that Capital Punishment is unquestionably wrong and immoral, I'd think there'd be very little of it. I don't think Capital Punishment is defensible.
I understand you more clearly now, Nirvana. Thank you.
peace and love