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.
Buddhist view on the Death Penalty
Following the death by lethal injection of Ex -Crips leader Stanley 'Tookie' Williams, I was wondering what the Buddhist view on this is?
I understand that he was convicted of murdering four people in 1979, he has served 26 years in jail (More than many do in the UK convicted for Life)..
Despite writing many books for Children against gangs, and receiving plaudits and support from many people, he was denied clemency. Schwarzenegger said that because he had refused to admit to the killings and apologise, he had showed no atonement.
Following hot on the heels of the 1000th execution in the US....will this case help to have the death sentence policy in some States reviewed, or will more states follow suit?
Would you admit to something you didn't do, in order to save your life, or would you maintain your innocence?
I understand that he was convicted of murdering four people in 1979, he has served 26 years in jail (More than many do in the UK convicted for Life)..
Despite writing many books for Children against gangs, and receiving plaudits and support from many people, he was denied clemency. Schwarzenegger said that because he had refused to admit to the killings and apologise, he had showed no atonement.
Following hot on the heels of the 1000th execution in the US....will this case help to have the death sentence policy in some States reviewed, or will more states follow suit?
Would you admit to something you didn't do, in order to save your life, or would you maintain your innocence?
0
Comments
I was reading last night that in the tradition I follow the monastic community are allowed to eat meat if they are so ill that not doing so would cause them to die. The reason being that it is worse to let yourself die than break a precept as you are preventing yourself from reaching enlightenment. Better to break a precept and deal with the karma than to let yourself die.
I think this could apply to this situation as well. Yes, you would be lying but in doing so you are still alive to continue your practice even though you've gained another bundle of karma to deal with.
Incidently, the book I'm reading is "The Roar Of The Tigress", a series of lectures on beginning Buddhist practice and ethics by Rev Master Jiyu-Kennett. It's well worth getting hold of if you can find a copy.
Perhaps he thought he deserved to die for what he had done and this was his way of going about it rather than committing suicide.
I have for many years believed in the Death Penalty, however little by little I have moved towards the view that this act is not right. This man appears to have taken the responsible action of indicating to Children the 'Wrongs' of being in gangs and indeed apologised for forming the gang in 1971 at the age of 17....
Maybe he truly believed he was innocent, or maybe he actually was...........
I'll second that.
My personal view:
In America, this is a big concern that has been debated for as long as we have been a country. I know that I am biased, unenlightened, and full of delusion so, I was certainly on the fence about this one.
The 10 Commandments and the 10 Precepts agree: Don't harm or kill. But what about the man who rapes and kills a child? My first gut reaction is,"Death, death, and more death". It seems like a simple and logical answer, but I decided that if I truly believed that the Buddha did achieve enlightenment, and tried to teach the best way for us to achieve it as well, then I should trust his teachings on this matter. He should definitely know best since he was completely without greed, hatred, and delusion, right? In the Kakacuupamasutta of the Majjhima Nikaya he teaches:
"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. Even then 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 that no matter the harm caused, we should never in turn cause harm or even harbor ill-will. It may seem far beyond a normal person's natural reaction, but it is a training that we must practice if we are to truly follow in the Buddha's footsteps. To become a better society, I think that it's wise to not kill others. From a Buddhist's perspective, if you believe in rebirth, doesn't that mean that they will simply come back in some other form? If the root cause of that anger and violence isn't treated skilfully enough to remove it in this life, will it not also arise in the next?
In the ways of worldly people who do not practice true 'compassion' and 'loving-kindness', the death penalty may appear to be the 'right' thing to do. Our defilements can obscure our wisdom so much that we see an 'eye for an eye' as a fair and equivalent exchange, but is it really? I hope that one day people will change their minds for their own sakes and realize that killing is harmful to themselves, as well as others. It is some extraordinarily heavy negative kamma to kill a human being. I know that the results of such kamma may be lessened if it is done with the best of intentions, the Buddha described intention as being as great a volition as the actual act, but it is still something to be strongly avoided.
After some consideration, I have personally decided that I would vote against the death penalty. Even Angulimala, the brutal killer, was able to see the wrongs that he had done and managed to turn himself onto the Path. After murdering 999 people out of delusion, he too achieved the fruits of the Dhamma-vinaya taught by the Buddha - Nibbana. If there is hope for him, then there is hope for everyone.
What right do we have to end what isn't ours to end? How can we say that we are morally right in murdering someone? It sounds like some bad logic to me. The committer of the evil deed must deal with their own suffering, and we shouldn't in turn grasp ahold of their suffering and turn it into our own akusala kamma by killing them. It just harms us in our own practice. It is only the continuation of the cycle of samsara that we obtain from their ultimate punishment.
What fruit could possibly arise from their deaths?
It seems like ignorance and rebirth to me.
My view: Death penalty = not skillful.
Jason
There it is.
gassho
-fd-
Personally I feel that the death penalty should be abolished. It is barbaric to even try to sentence a murderer to death, let alone any criminal. They might have destroyed lives but the fact remains that when someone whacks you you should not try to return it. There are many ways to punish somebody, not just with death.
Singapore's stand on it is that it is not uncivilized and that even the US practises it. And I find myself ashamed a few days ago, when our local paper reported about Australia's poor record in keeping druggies under control - since they do not practise the death penalty for anything, drugs included. It was totally shameful, I must say, I myself did not know how to describe it. Worse than shameful. It became equilavent to saying that only the death penalty could stop drug abuse, and worse, it was like trying to disgrace the Aussies.
Well before I drone off subject, I must say the death penalty really sucks. Big time.
Anyway I was digusted, very, when I realized that despite Singapore's firm stance on the death penalty being a great deterrent for any crime - being a terrorist in Singapore, does not earn you a death sentence - despite the potential dangers of it. I am not saying that terrorists should be given the death sentence - but I'm trying to say that Singapore is being very inconsistent on the death penalty.
Lastly to all the Aussies out there, I'd like to apologize for my country's total disgrace. While it is one thing for our laws to be interfered with, it is another, to criticize another country's social problems, and use it to our advantage.
It is unacceptable according to Buddhism.
Palzang
Second, I agree that there are some people who, by their actions, deny themselves the right to be called 'human' and deserve death. However, as I have said somewhere else, I would prefer that such individuals be dumped on some island where they can be left to rot.
The final point is why do people always recant their crimes and promise to lead a good life when they have already been caught, tried and sentenced? Why can't they make that decision before they kill someone? Go figure.
I don't believe it to be a constant Truth that a criminal doesn't ever feel a level of guilt during the perpetration of the crime. Even during the days when I wasn't perfect (!!:D ) if I did something wrong, I had a niggling whang on the back of the cranium with a guilt-frying-pan, while I was being 'bad'....so I was aware, even during my actions, that it was a no-no.....
But many commit crimes and suffer as they do so: They are disillusioned, unconscious and out of control. And whilst unfortunately, prisons contain people who on leaving, will commit crimes again, there are stories of those who through many manner & means, "See the Light" and realise the wretchedness of their actions. And even during their incarceration, become model prisoners, or when released, do what they can publicly to atone for their misdemeanours... there are many 'happy ending' stories....
My question would be:
How sorry does a person have to be before they are forgiven?
Let us say that they really are truly remorseful for what they have done.... how should they be forgiven? Should they be forgiven at all? And by whom? And in what way?
I would be very interested to learn the criteria by which any person, court or state could determine that any individual can no longer be called 'human'. This stinks of the notion of the untermensch which has been used, time and again, to dehumanise those who are to be exterminated: Jews in Nazi Europe, Native Peoples in North America, Kurds, etc.
BEWARE! Once any person is deprived of their personhood, you could be next.
Do not forget Pastor Niemoeller's words to the US Congress.
I am of mixed feelings on this matter. There is the issue of Justice. Obviously, there are different cases requiring different solutions. The person who caught his/her spouse cheating and killed them in passionate rage, obviously shouldn't be condemned to die. However, if you are dealing with someone who has killed multiple times, and shows no remorse or likelihood of coexisting with the rest of society, then how can you expect that society to pay his bills? Perhaps we should look at the death penalty like that, it's not so much a "punishment" as it is a harsh necessity in some cases. To kill someone as a form of "discipline" serves no purpose whatsoever. They are dead and can no longer learn anything from such "discipline". However, to ask otherwise innocent people to pay extra taxes to support someone who is unlikely to ever reform is to put a burden on the general public that many do not want. I gladly support the rehabilitation of someone before killing them, but if that person is not rehabilitatable, then keeping them alive just costs too much.
And this is the condensed version.
And do you take the same view of the care of the incurable? After all, they cost the able-bodied taxpayer too.
Perhaps, incurable serial killer/rapist. If someone can be convicted of three different counts of second degree murder, or two counts of murder/rape, then that person cannot fit into society, and is merely a monetary burden.
My view of the death penalty is that there are times when it is the harsh necessity, because housing certain antisocietal elements is too expensive. Should someone who is obviously mentally ill be killed for killing someone? No, this person did not kill out of antisocietal intent and should only be removed from the mainstream of society and given something to do that is semiconstructive. It's just that not all murderers are mentally ill, and not all mentally ill are murderers by design. The use of the death penalty should be limited only to those situations in which housing someone in a high security facility for life because of a crime of willful intent is the only other option, and that is only because of the cost and long term problems associated with life imprisonment.
I just felt like adding this to the debate as food for thought......
Acts of charity I can handle. Giving to the poor, or showing a little mercy to someone who made a mistake is not a problem. It is unfortunate that execution has been historically necessary because some people can't coexist with the majority of people, but the fact remains that dealing with these people is never easy. Not only are we talking about the annual cost to house such a person, but we are also dealing with the issue of whether or not he will escape. Should the necessary items be available that I know these people can be housed and cared for cost-effectively, I would gladly support a ban on the death penalty. Honestly, the best thing we can do at this time is look for that solution, so that in the future execution is not necessary.
Sorry, this essay is coming in bits and pieces, but I've got a busy schedule right now.
The one main problem I see with this point of view is that the the question then becomes:
How much money is a human life worth?
The real bottom line now is what is the limit that we can spend on a person before we kill them. How much are we willing to be taken out of our tax dollars before we are simply feed up with it and send the person in jail to get electrocuted?
I'm sorry, but there just has to be a better way.
That is merely greed in it's worst form.
Jason
This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "There are these three inside stains, inside enemies, inside foes, inside murderers, inside adversaries. Which three? Greed is an inside stain, inside enemy, inside foe, inside murderer, inside adversary. Aversion is an inside stain... Delusion is an inside stain, inside enemy, inside foe, inside murderer, inside adversary. These are the three inside stains, inside enemies, inside foes, inside murderers, inside adversaries."
Greed causes harm.
Greed provokes the mind.
People don't realize it
as a danger born from within.
A person, when greedy,
doesn't know his own welfare;
when greedy,
doesn't see Dhamma.
Overcome with greed,
he's in the dark, blind.
But when one, abandoning greed,
feels no greed
for what would merit greed,
greed gets shed from him —
like a drop of water
off a lotus leaf.
Aversion causes harm.
Aversion provokes the mind.
People don't realize it
as a danger born from within.
A person, when aversive,
doesn't know his own welfare;
when aversive,
doesn't see Dhamma.
Overcome with aversion
he's in the dark, blind.
But when one, abandoning aversion,
feels no aversion
for what would merit aversion,
aversion drops away from him —
like a palm leaf from its stem.
Delusion causes harm.
Delusion provokes the mind.
People don't realize it
as a danger born from within.
A person, when deluded,
doesn't know his own welfare;
when deluded,
doesn't see Dhamma.
Overcome with delusion
he's in the dark, blind.
But when one, abandoning delusion,
feels no delusion
for what would merit delusion,
he disperses all delusion —
as the rising of the sun, the dark.
- Iti III
But I would also say if a vandel confesses, you should go and spaypaint there house
A theif should get the repo men
A person who assults someone should get the **** kicked out of them
etc.
etc.
Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.
This is a disappointing and pretty immature response, I respectfully suggest that if Buddhism is truly the path that you wish to follow, that these responses need to be reviewed and re-examined as they conflict with everything that Buddhism represents. This kind of response is the sort of thing that I would expect to see on a Football Hooligan's Site.
MODERATING:
Sangha, these comments are inflammatory and offensive and do you no credit....
Please think a bit before you post.....
Can you tell me how killing can stop killing? Do you see the illogic of this?
That's one of the main problems I see repeated over and over again on this particular forum. Everybody is always giving their (sentient being's) opinions on everything from euthanasia to dog care. I mean, really, who cares? As the old saying goes, everybody's got an opinion, just like everyone has a you-know-what*, and they both stink! What's important is to listen to the teachings which come directly from the mind of enlightenment, whether that is from the sutras or an enlightened teacher, and follow them. That's all there is to it.
Peace to all of you.
Palzang
*The nether orifice, in case you don't know what.
:wtf:
-bf
If killing one war criminal could bring one Jew back to life, I'd say go for it! But sadly it is not the case - it simply results in more suffering. You must remember that if doing an act does not cancel another, don't do it.
So what is the Middle Path of war? I say kill the aggressors if absolutely necessary, for that would end one man's advance into your land, but leave their bodies untouched, for that is of no use to your objective (to stop the aggression). To refuse to serve would be an act of extremism into austerity and to mutilate them like ants (shame to all who cut ants up! [except one girl]) would be an act of extremism into being "poisoned" by hate.
After the war nothing should thus be made, maybe only reparations and justiable, fair stuff (since that would help to return everything to normal) but not create another Treaty of Versailles.
But it is good, Sangha, that at about 13 you already do have an interest in philosophy, keep it up and I am sure that you will pick up fast (though in Buddhism there isn't anything to pick up) :doh:
The main argument for the death penalty seems to be punishment, but is it? Is death a punishment? Certainly the loss of your life's opportunity (rare in Buddhist rebirth) seems like a payment, but wouldn't the negative karma just get recycled immediately? Wouldn't rehabilitation be better?
Same goes for suicide. If you want the pain to stop you decide to kill yourself, but who remains to reap the benefit? No one. So don't do it. People go all gooey for Kurt Cobain, but I think he was a coward.
end of post.
No. It was because killing is not a solution.
When I say that someone's punishment should be what they did in the first place. I see that prison would have no effect on certain criminals. For example, if a thief steals, they get locked up, when they get let out, they steal again. If a thief lost all of his posessions, it would hopefully have more of an impact than simply putting them in prison.
As for the killing one, if a serial killer admits he has killed, killing him (death penalty) is going to stop him killing again, yes?
So you're saying had Hitler not killed himself you would of let him walk free? What I was trying to say was just an addition to my 'treat others how you would like to be treated' punishment theory.
A killer that is dead can no longer kill.
If those that do wrong are not punished, there will be no end to the wrong-doing.
It cannot bring them back but in can stop those who did it from doing it again.
If this world was perfect, there would be no war, but sadly it is not. We have to realise that there is war and there is suffering. I am not going to be one of those who stands by and watches others get hurt. We need to do something.
The argument for the death penalty is not punishment. It's prevention of the horrible happening again.
Ever heard the story of Sylivia Plaith? She stuck her head in the oven to gas herself. However certain theories say that she had no intention of killing herself as the cleaner was suppose to come that day. The cleaner unfortunatly, did not come, thus she died. She had a great mind (a great poet), but she was.... mentally unstable. She made a cry for help and nobody answered her cry. She had nobody to turn to. Her life was over anyway, she just ended it officially.
Karma is never negative!? Refer to my point about the fact that there are wrong-doers and there is suffering. Also take a look at the 1st noble truth.
Someone who is dead cannot killa again - viola! Solution!
And you can try to come up with all kinds of reasons, arguments, logical discussions and equasions.
Still don't work, I'm afraid.
But if you do not punish those that need to be punished there is no justice.
So fine, we need a punishment that is not death.
But what punishment is strong enough to give justice for taking the life of another human being?
But is killing a punishment? Ulimatly, someone who kills is probably not right in the head, they will be reborn. You could say we're giving them a second chance.
So what's your point then?
So kill them, give them a second chance to do well.
No karma is absolutely bad. Use your killing logic then. Does the executioner gain "bad karma" then? :doh: