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.
Death Penalty
I'm not sure if this is the right place for it, move it if you think it isn't.
Anyway I figured this site was an appropriote place for this discussion.
I was extremely saddened today watching the news as I watched people cheering outside a court house as the verdict came that Scott Peterson would be sentenced to death.
A few things when through my mind, the important one being that the death of a living being should not be associated with the emotion of cheering or laughing, it just isn't right. He was convicted of murdering his wife and unborn child, a sad series of event and events for which he should punished, however, how can we celebrate the fact that our government is going to commit murder upon one of its citizens? Did somebody forget the lesson we all learned as young children 'two wrongs don't make a right'. The death penalty to me is one thing: vengence. Why would anyone want to see another human being put to death other than to satisfy their own quest for vengence?
He should be imprisoned, he should be punished. But killing somebody is not the answer.
I brought this up in a class I had today and a girl said "The bible says 'An Eye for an Eye' and I thought for a minute and I said "well, I don't follow the teachings of the bible, however, it also says 'Thou Shalt not Kill'" Can people honestly bend these rules, so if you're going to use something like religion to back up your argument, atleast use it right, it's not "Thou Shalt Not Kill...unless they have already killed and it suits are purposes for punishment" what a contradiction, someone citing the bible as justification for killing another person.
So, that's my thoughts on that, and it really saddens me that someone can celebrate the decision of death for another person, it's not the way people should be thinking and it's certainly not something we should be proud of ourselves for being a part of.
What are all your thoughts on this?
Anyway I figured this site was an appropriote place for this discussion.
I was extremely saddened today watching the news as I watched people cheering outside a court house as the verdict came that Scott Peterson would be sentenced to death.
A few things when through my mind, the important one being that the death of a living being should not be associated with the emotion of cheering or laughing, it just isn't right. He was convicted of murdering his wife and unborn child, a sad series of event and events for which he should punished, however, how can we celebrate the fact that our government is going to commit murder upon one of its citizens? Did somebody forget the lesson we all learned as young children 'two wrongs don't make a right'. The death penalty to me is one thing: vengence. Why would anyone want to see another human being put to death other than to satisfy their own quest for vengence?
He should be imprisoned, he should be punished. But killing somebody is not the answer.
I brought this up in a class I had today and a girl said "The bible says 'An Eye for an Eye' and I thought for a minute and I said "well, I don't follow the teachings of the bible, however, it also says 'Thou Shalt not Kill'" Can people honestly bend these rules, so if you're going to use something like religion to back up your argument, atleast use it right, it's not "Thou Shalt Not Kill...unless they have already killed and it suits are purposes for punishment" what a contradiction, someone citing the bible as justification for killing another person.
So, that's my thoughts on that, and it really saddens me that someone can celebrate the decision of death for another person, it's not the way people should be thinking and it's certainly not something we should be proud of ourselves for being a part of.
What are all your thoughts on this?
0
Comments
Is ending a life really going to accomplish anything? All it will do is create another void where there is already a huge void. What utter pointlessness.
It's funny. Most of the civilized world thinks the USA is ass-backwards about the death penalty. It's one of those things that gives us that rootin' tootin' cowboy image. It's also exceptionally hypocritical. It sickens me that there is government sanctioned murder. And it saddens me that people cheer for it.
What irks me even more is the image of people cheering in the streets when the descision was announced was the similar image from 9/11 of people in Palestine cheering in the streets when they found out 2000+ innocent people had been killed. The fact that someone could celebrate another person's death makes me sick to my stomach. No matter what attrocities he commited (and lets be honest what he did was aweful), killing him will not make anyone feel better. In fact I am willing to believe that in the long run those same people who cheered will feel guily at what they did.
I have always felt that the worst punishment you could impose on someone in this type of situation is to force them to live out the rest of thier life in prision. A guilty conscience is far more painful than a needle in your arm.
I have many thoughts on the justifications people use of their actions based on the bible... but i think i'll save them for another time as that isn't the main thrust of this thread.
just my opinion
There are some who would argue that capital punishment is nothing more than state-sanctioned murder, but I am not among them. I favor capital punishment in some cases, but would rather err on the side of caution in any situation where there may be some doubt. In no event would I be "happy and cheering" over it.
In the Scott Peterson case, I am surprised at the sentence. While I agree that there is overwhelming evidence that he is guilty, the fact that we still don't know how Lacy and Conner died would lead me to favor life in prison - a somewhat "correctable" punishment if new evidence comes to light.
In any event, the way the appeals process works (especially in California), the chief difference here is that Peterson will likely live out his natural life on Death Row instead of in the general prison population. Hell, the guy will probably outlive me...
As for "eye for an eye", that is meant to be a limiting factor, not a minimum. For instance, according to Hebrew law it would be wrong to punish someone with death for stealing a pack of gum. Modern western law has similar maximum sentencing guidelines. It merely means that punishment should be meted out with restraint, using all due consideration of the severity of the crime as a guideline. Mitigating circumstances could well reduce the penalty to a lower level than the actual offense.
You hold the 'laws of the land' to a higher order than the Ten Commandments??? I would never describe myself as ever having been a very strong member of the Catholic church even though that was the way I was brought up, but please, explain to me how killing someone, or as profdlp said "thou shalt not commit murder", how can this ever be justified?
When a rapist is caught and convicted, do we sentence him or her to be raped, would that 'teach them a good lesson' to have he same fate of their victim applied to them? No, of course not, because we would find that disgusting, distasteful, and not a practice in our 'civilized world'. So how then can we justify killing someone, under ANY circumstances. As I said before, we teach our children "two wrongs dont make a right." If someone you know is killed, do you in turn go kill the person who did it? No, because you yourself would end up in jail or on death row. However, when it's the government we say this is OKAY because it's been 'through the system' so we just toss our morals out the window?
It boggles my mind that we can become the same as a murderer in taking away the most precious thing in the world. And fine you can say that it's not state sanctioned murder, call it whatever you want, but at a basic level you are saying it's OKAY TO KILL SOMEONE because that's what they did.
And to end my rant, here's a quote from someone after the verdict was announced today:
This is the 'rational' thinking we're breeding in this country with the death penalty.
Some of the purpose of the death penalty is to allow some small amount of closure to the victim and to balance an equation that was set off by the death of someone by the hands of someone else. Is this revenge, yes and no. I lost my mother 9 years ago. I came home to find her lying dead on the bedroom floor. Until my father and I knew what had happened, we could not fully start the grieving and healing process. I have seen interviews from victims families, they have no closure. They may never have closure but many feel some small amount of it when the person is killed. There is no fear of that killer getting free, no one else will be killed by that person, and the balance is returned.
Now... I do not like the result of the Peterson trial or any trial that leaves ANY doubt of guilt. Death penalty should only be used in clear cases (murders captured on Video, confessions that are not coerced...). I also think that the murder needs to be more than a simple shooting, stabbing... it needs to have been very heinous. If there was more evidence to show, without a doubt, that Peterson killed his wife and unborn child... then I would be in favor of him being put to death.
I am not sure why we "American's" still have capital punishment.... Will things change in the furture... I hope that we can find better ways to handle crime and punishment. I just cannot fathom allowing someone that killed to sit in a climate controlled cell, have a bed and running water, have access to a health club, heath care, food, education... while we have poor and needy, law abiding citizens that could use those things...
There is no authority above a single man's will. Therefore, as we allow our government to murder people, we are submitting to the will of body of humans, and we, being complacent in the choice to allow capital punishiment, are as guilty of murder as the murderer who has been sentenced.
Forget morals or ethics. Forget law of the land. The simple fact is, taking a life is not conducive to your own peace. Therefore, we will never know peace as long as we are a society guilty of murder.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Because it is lawful and not malicious.
We are probably all familiar with the tragic event at a concert last week where a number of people were murdered. Would you condemn the police officer who killed the gunman (and no doubt saved many lives) in the same way that you'd condemn the perpetrator?
Matthew Brady's Civil War photographs were described by one newspaper as "Having brought death and laid it at America's doorstep". With over half a million dead in four years I think that lesson was indeed learned.
***********************************
I put forth these arguments as food for thought. The death penalty is one of those subjects on which I find myself continuously having to re-make up my mind. I am fairly certain that I would be against it completely were it not for one fact: For many of the victims families it is the only way to bring closure to the situation. Thank God I have never been in this position, but if I had a close friend or loved one murdered it would probably drive me insane to know that, while they were gone forever, their killer might possibly have even one relatively cheerful hour. Knowing that the murderer could still at least receive news of their family, could get a birthday card from their kids or parents, could know that their little sister just got married, or whatever, would only underscore my loss even more.
It's all well and good to make a detached judgement concerning total strangers, but when it becomes personal I think that many of the strongest opponents of capital punishment might find themselves feeling very differently. Every time I think that I've finally decided that the death penalty is unequivocally wrong, consideration for the feelings of the grieving survivors opens the issue up all over again.
Please understand that I'm not arguing with any of you. Your sincerely held beliefs have much merit, and I find myself more in agreement with you than not. It is not an easy issue for me to pick a side I feel 100% comfortable with either way.
Lawful killing? It just seems so immature to me. Both realistically, and spiritually.
See, this is where it comes down to "killing" versus "murder".
Buddhism is a path of intent. Your intent determines the spiritual cost, the cost to your karma. The police officer's intent was to stop a murderous maniac. He used the best tool at his disposal - his gun. His intentions were pure. He wanted to end the misery of the situation. He (i'm guessing) did not have evil in his heart when he pulled that trigger.
A jury who decides death for a person DOES have the wrong intentions. Their intention is revenge? The cost will be to their karma.
See, the death of Scott Peterson will do nothing, ultimately, for the family of Laci. They will find only emptiness in their celebration. These poor, poor, people who have suffered so much already, are only acting to increase their suffering by wishing for another's death, with ill intent. Killing him will not "keep him off the streets" - that has already been accomplished. Scott Peterson's "joy" or brief moments of happiness or whatever changes nothing.
My cousin was murdered. My cousin was a hero to me when I was a young boy. He was ten years older than me and I very much looked up to him. It was his influence that led me to bass guitar (one of my true joys in life) and to an interest in computers (another). He was taken from our family by a malicious gunshot from a police officer when I was 7 years old. That police officer was judged not guilty and is now retired. Do I wish his death? Absolutely not. What would it do? Avenge my cousin somehow? I hope peace for the officer who killed my cousin. He has a long path ahead of him, due to the setback he created for himself by murdering another human. A long, painful path that will be full of suffering and unhappiness. I only hope that he finds peace in this lifetime or another.
Perhaps he was someone who I loved very much in another lifetime. We are all connected. When somebody dies tragically, I feel it. Whether they be the victim of a psychopath or the victim of a jury.
My mother was a very good psychotherapist and she specialized on families and children... she taught me a great deal about dealing with emotion and how to rationalize events and the emotions they bring.
I believe she taught me how to ultimately deal with her death and the death of both of my grandparents... I also feel grateful that I can help other in their times of need.
I have not had anyone taken due to criminal actions, so I have no idea the flood of emotions that that can carry. I cannot speak for the victims, therefore, I would be unable to determine the true, everlasting result from the death of a killer. The difference between a “bad decision” by a officer and someone breaking into a home and prematurely ending the lives of a young family… to me is extreme.
If someone killed my little girls, I would be willing to suffer through the guilt for the rest of my life if I knew that the killer was no longer living… I know that the Buddhist way, I should not fall into that trap. I know that I should find some bit of peace without needing another death…. But not my family, no… I would start spouting scripture… “eye for an eye”….
Execution serves no purpose but revenge. I can't really judge whether that revenge is appropriate/justified or not, never having been in that circumstance, but I can't see how any good could come of it either.
I can't stand hearing about killing. Whether its humans, animals or anything. Killing is horrible because you are taking something so sweet away from that creature.
I know its a little bit off topic, but I had to say it
O! Bhikkhus, even if robbers cut your limbs one after another with a two handled saw, if your mind be defiled on account of that, you have not done the duty in my dispensation Then too you should train thus. Our minds will not change, we will not utter evil words. We will abide compassionate with thoughts of loving kindness not angry. We will pervade that person with thoughts of loving kindness. With that same sign, grown great and developed extensively, I pervade and abide. Bhikkhus, you should train thus.
So it seems no matter the harm caused we should never intern cause harm or even ill-will. It is far beyond a normal persons reaction, but it is a training that we must practice to see life as life, and the truth as it is. So to be a better society I think it's wise to not kill others. But in the ways of worldly people who do not train or practice compassion it is the way they see as being right. I hope one day people will change their minds for their own sakes. It is some heavy negative kamma to kill a human. I know the price is lessened if it is done with the best of intentions, because the Buddha described intention as being as great a volition as the actual act, but it is still something to be avoided. I would vote against the death penalty then. Even Angulimala, the brutal killer was able to see the wrongs he had done and turned himself onto the path. There is hope for everyone. What right do we have to end what isn't ours to end? They must deal with their own suffering, we shouldn't turn their suffering into our kamma and kill them. It just harms us in our practice. It is only the continuation the the cycle of samsara that we obtain from their punishment. What fruit will arise from death? Seems like ignorance and rebirth.
Welcome to the site.
As far as the death penalty goes I used to think literally "A Eye For An Eye." In the case of killing a child
Adiana
-Don
So the numbers build up, with the result that some offences no longer carry a prison sentence, but community service instead. Not everyone agrees with this turn of things.... the little old lady left bruised, confused and frightened by the teenage mugger who steals her pension, is hardly going to welcome him sweeping the sidewalks and weeding the gardens outside her house, is she....?
Nick (my fella) says that the punishment should fit the crime.... if he were a magistrate, and he had before him a young hooligan and thug that kept stealing little old ladies' handbags, he'd chop his hand off, hang it from a post in the street as a warning to others that if they persist then they know what's coming to them..... this may well be the needed deterrent... my daughter, who has just been back to the UK for a visit, tells me that there are groups of vigilante residents in some quarters, who are fed up with the legal softly-softly approach, and are meting out their own punishment on those they catch doing the wrong thing.... frightening though such a thing may seem, on her friends' estate, crime has dropped by 32% since the beginning of the year...
The problem is that, even though everyone seems opposed to the Death Penalty, no-one has yet suggested a viable, workable alternative solution..... including me, I might add....
Fed,
The only solution I can see is one that is in existence right now. That is life in prison without the possibility of parole. Even that has its problems but I would still say that it is better than the Death Penalty. Yes, you are right; no one can seem to come up with an alternative including me.
Adiana
If killing someone achieves more positive than negative for society as a whole then I am for it. Of course, that is a very subjective determination requiring lots of analysis. If the death penalty was enforced with swiftness then maybe it would actually have a deterring effect but right now it does not. It could be argued that punishing a crime with such a severe act makes the collective conscience see that crime as being more heinous and taboo and therefore less likely to be committed. It's impossible to measure whether or not this is true.
I believe we use the death penalty at inappropriate times.
We should not give the death penalty to drug dealers who kill other drug dealers...maybe that shouldnt even be called homicide. Criminal-on-criminal murder should get a max of life in prison.
The death penalty SHOULD be used on rapists and child molesters. I've had extensive first-hand experience in the criminal justice business for 16 years and I can say undeniably that serial-rapists and pedophiles CANNOT be fixed. The oneinamillion chance that one could be rehabilitated is not worth the risk of one child being hurt by a repeat-offender. The child's right to be safe far outweighs the rights of a convicted baby-raper.
If someone raped my little girl...tell ya what...go ahead and give him probation. The day he walked out of jail he would be praying for capital punishment. Oh the justice I would dole out.
People standing outside the prison cheering the guy's execution is stupid. The death penalty should be used but it should be used with a bit of reverance for human life rather than an animalistic rage.
I don't think that anyone here is implying that practicing buddhism means that you are automatically anti-war, anti-violence, or anti-capital punishmment. All I know is that since I started practicing Buddhism, my practice of Buddhism has made me stop and re-evaluate my thoughts about the death penalty. I used to subscribe to the idea of an "eye for an eye" but I am not so sure anymore. I am starting to wonder if our society might not benefit from studying the serial murderers, serial rapists, and pedophiles to see if there is something that can be learned from them scientifically to possibly find ways to prevent these acts from happening in the future. I also know that our society has been studying these types of offenders for quite some time but that is precisely the reason that studying them should not discontinue. Who's to say that there is not some way to stop these types of things from happening in the future? We will never know if we stop trying, now, will we? That is why I am advocating the idea of life without the possibility of parole. I agree that these serial offenders can never be rehabilitated but I don't think that putting them to death is necessarily the right thing to do. I also want to say that I am a parent of three kids; two girls and one son. I also have to admit that it would be hard for me to not want to take revenge against someone if they were to hurt my kids but I also know that I don't want to kill them either. I think that if I were to commit a crime that resulted in my being imprisoned for the rest of my life without parole, no matter how "cushy" the accomodations in prison, well that would pretty much destroy me mentally because I value my freedom to come and go as I please and to be able to do pretty much what I want as long as it does not harm anyone or myself. This is simply my humble opinion on this topic and I am entitled to express it as are others of differing opinion.
Adiana
TheBatman, you're right,I know that one isn't automatically expected to be anti- these things when you commit to Buddhism.... but in followng the Eightfold Path and at least attempting to adhere to the Five Precepts, there is a demand for Effort to these commitments. This is where people therefore enter a 'field of Angst.' Following any religion, faith, philosophy and committing to any lifestyle, will always throw up unexpected obstacles, or blindside us with challenges we never expected.
I have heard of, and read about parents, relatives and close friends of murder victims, forgiving the perpetrators, and of establishing a relationship with them, with the result that 'Victim' and murderer are reconciled.... it's a long shot, and it may not work every time, but surely the path to peace and serenity, salvation from pain and suffering, is through Universal Compassion, and Unconditional Love?
I am not deluded into believing that this solution should be - or even could be - applied in every case - for a start, the Victim's "posse" may not be able to feel that way!! And not every criminal will 'repent'!! But It has to start somewhere. I too have children, and whether I would be able to practise what I preach, is something I hope to never have to put into practise... But I know myself enough, to know I would give it a damn good try....
It has to be worth it, even if the only healing is within me.....
I definitely respect your opinions on this as you have argued your points well. Adiana, you sound a little defensive so I probably came off as if I was attacking. Sorry. I tend to be a little blunt and sarcastic so please don't take offense.
I don't have a problem with life-without-parole if it really is enforced. My concern is that sentence leaves the door open for activist judges and attorneys to massage life-without-parole into ten-years-he's-healed.
I'm open to persuasion on the death penalty at this point because I have not pondered it as much as I should. I have not been placed in a position (vote, etc) where my opinion would cause a direct effect on the issue so it has not been high on my list of things to analyze.
This much I am sure of: if my little girl was hurt by someone, she would never live a moment of fear wondering if that person was going to hurt her again. He would be in prison or dead.
Great topic here.
Batman,
No problem. I can see where you are going with the idea of activist judges and attorneys trying to overturn verdicts. It would infuriate me, too. That is one of the problems with our judiciary system---there is always gonna be someone that has to interfere with decisions that have already been dealt with.
Adiana
and I appreciate your comments regarding the scale of serious crime in canada vs America.... it therefore bodes the observation that culturally speaking, America needs to address this problem right back to grass-roots level, during childhood, education, upbringing and social/cultural influence.... wow, should be a sinch, really!!!
when u say the problem and solution r u referring to the death penalty or people commiting these crimes?
The death penalty...
But how can one truly respect the laws of the land and be obedient to them when they are in constant flux. For example, slavery, abortion, and many others. Just because the law is made by judges, lawyers, and other officials, gives it no more validity than if you or I were to write it. How can a law be just and make just decisions when it changes drastically (slavery and segregation again).
I personally see the death penalty as a semi-barbaric way to exterminate prisoners. I hear people say that it costs more money to keep them alive. But with all the appeals, and court hearings, and lots of other legal jargin, it would cost around the same or less to keep them alive.
^gassho^
I must take strong issue with the idea that Christians must obey the "law of the land". This is utter nonsense! If it were the case, we would have no Protestant churches, no USA, we would still have slavery. Christians are called to radical social action: feeding the hungry, freeing the prisoner, etc. No text has ben more manipulatively interpreted than that of "rendering unto Caesar". Christians are called to find the indwelling Trinity, ultimate compassion. I cannot understand how that leads us to support "judicial murder".
The same problem exists for Buddhists. The early, English writer on Buddhism, Christmas Humphreys, was both a prosecutor and a "hanging judge" at a time when the UK still hanged murderers. He never satifactorily answered, for me, the dilemma, hiding behind karma.
It is not death that I object to: that is a normal part of the dukkha of existence. Many of us have meditated on our own death for a number of years: it is one of the roots of our suffering, co-arising with birth. Death is the one certain inheritance of all that comes to birth, living impermanence.
What I find objectionable is the karmic effect on all those involved in the decision and execution of the sentence, as well as the society which enacts such laws. However much the 'law of the land' permits such taking of life, it is people, individuals, who must carry it out. Society demands that they carry, in their own lives, a debt which takes a fearful toll.
also ROTFLMAO!!