Buddhism And The Death Penalty

[camerata]

The death penalty: religious perspectives

"Buddhism considers it wrong to kill even a mosquito, so how can we accept that it is right to execute a human being?" These words were part of an uncompromising rejection of capital punishment addressed to a recent gathering at Wat Suan Dok in Chiang Mai, by a senior monk. He enlarged on the theme in even stronger words: "According to the teachings of the Buddha, every living being has a right to life; even to think of harming any creature is a mistake."

He explained that in Buddhist thinking, harmful thoughts lead to bad speech, and hence to bad action. It is impossible to prevent harmful thoughts from resulting in crime. The inevitable outcome of crime from bad thoughts cannot be prevented by fear of death. But shame can disable the harmful intention, change thought and develop a human being. Every prisoner can change his nature, to become pure.

In recent months, seminars have been taking place in several locations throughout Thailand to examine religious perspectives on the death penalty.

[...]

On Dec 18, 2007 the General Assembly of the United Nations again took up the issue of the right to life and, by a majority vote of 104 to 54, declared in favour of a Moratorium on the Death Penalty. The motion was bitterly opposed by some member countries, and the decision is not mandatory. But a majority vote of the General Assembly carries immense authority. At the least, all members of the UN are mandated to consider their practice of the death penalty and to take account of a world opinion that increasingly favours abolition. Thailand was one of the minority countries opposing the Moratorium. The Thai delegate had earlier explained his stance by asserting that there are worthless people who do not deserve to live! His sentiment cannot be justified by the religious beliefs of the people of Thailand.

The monk in Chiang Mai continued his discourse. "Execution is a legal crime that is not different from illegal crime. A judge who orders execution by word or document is also guilty according to Buddhism. There is no exception."

Continued at Bangkok Post.

Edited October 12, 2008 by camerata
Made the topic title clearer.

[bankei]

This is often a topic of conversation with westerners - if Thailand is a Buddhist country why do they have the death penalty?

[garro]

I feel that capital punishment is against the Buddha's teachings. In my view it is barbaric and shameful for any country to murder its citizens.

[bankei]

This is often a topic of conversation with westerners - if Thailand is a Buddhist country why do they have the death penalty?

[Farma]

Many years ago Bangkok post ran a feature on an executioner who retired. He was a very religious farmer who was paid per execution. The feature described his ritual prior to the execution. A very interesting read if anyone can find the article.

In essence he was not executing an individual, instead he was shooting a screen placed between the gun and prisoner.

[RakJungTorlae]

Because government ruling and religion don't really mix if you know what im saying. I also think about why do just every day Buddhist people may lose there cool and kill someone. Just because there not wearing the orange robes they think there not going up shit creek

Human, pretty much all messed up.

Edited October 5, 2008 by RakJungTorlae

[camerata]

Many years ago Bangkok post ran a feature on an executioner who retired. He was a very religious farmer who was paid per execution. The feature described his ritual prior to the execution. A very interesting read if anyone can find the article.

The guy wrote a book about it all, The Last Executioner : Memoirs of Thailand's Last Prison Executioner by Chavoret Jaruboon.

[submaniac]

Pretty much every major religion disagrees with capital punishment (with Islam probably being the exception). So Buddhists execute people. Well so do Christians in the United States (what about turning the other cheek, or vengeance is mine sayeth the lord, or he who is without sin cast the first stone). I am actually for the death penalty, thought I think long term incarceration is a fate worst than death. But the only nations that still have capital punishment, is the one really advanced one-THe USA, or the third world ones (like thailand). Does that say anything? Not trying to make a poignant point here or anything...just trying to figure out why that is.

[RakJungTorlae]

Pretty much every major religion disagrees with capital punishment (with Islam probably being the exception). So Buddhists execute people. Well so do Christians in the United States (what about turning the other cheek, or vengeance is mine sayeth the lord, or he who is without sin cast the first stone). I am actually for the death penalty, thought I think long term incarceration is a fate worst than death. But the only nations that still have capital punishment, is the one really advanced one-THe USA, or the third world ones (like thailand). Does that say anything? Not trying to make a poignant point here or anything...just trying to figure out why that is.

I am for the death penalty as well, but Thailand seems to choose the wrong dudes to kill off.

And in the U.S well they just killing of everyone and everything with out good enough reason.

[Brucenkhamen]

The way I see it is what is more important? the rights of the individual or the rights of society as a whole?

When the body has cancerous cells that are destoying other cells you don't lock those cells away or try to rehabilitate them, you nuke them.

The same if society has individuals who violate the rights of others I don't really understand why we are so keep to give them free board and lodging for long periods of time.

If you violate the rights of others then you should have no rights and if there is no hope you can be turned around then it's hurting society as a whole to keep you around, to be eventually release top re-offend.

Just don't ask me to pull the trigger.

[garro]

The Buddha showed how even the worst murderers could completely change and become advanced practitioners in the dhamma. He also explained how precious this life should be treated and that the person we were last week is not the same as the person we are today. There is no permanent self passing through our life. If I kill somebody today and they execute me next year then they will not be executing the same person.

Capital punishment is about revenge and seems very out of place in Buddhism. It seems very odd to me that anyone claiming to be a Buddhist could support the death penalty - not that I am trying to say who is or isn't Buddhist just that I do not understand this view at all. Perhaps I am missing out on teachings and the Buddha did advocate killing certain people? I would be interested in hearing about any evidence to support this view.

In the United States a few years ago they began teaching Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction to inmates with great results. These people changed because they were introduced to Buddhist ideas, but this program was stopped because politicians complained that money should not be wasted on teaching inmates how to be happy. They were there to be punished.

When we murder a person we take away any opportunity they have to become a better human. We lose faith with kamma and decide to take matters into our own hands. In my view the executioner and their supporters have just as much blood on their hands as any other murderer - and of course they have just as many justifications.

[Brucenkhamen]

In our country we have no death penalty, there are regularly news items where a violent criminal has been relased on parole only to re-offend.

There will always be anecdotal evidence of violent criminals who have turned their lives around, just as there will be anecdotal evidence of violent criminals who keep on reoffending again and again.

Yes you are right that the person I am today is not the same person I was yesterday, but past kamma gives rise to future kamma and some few lives are so stuck in destructive patterns that they show no sign of being rehabilitated from their past kamma in this lifetime, these are the ones I'm talking about. If life is precious as you say then future victims deserve protection from these people.

To many people capital punishment is about revenge, true, but I don't see it that way, I see society as like body of cells that are interrelated and interdependant, when the body has cancerous cells that are destroying other cells you don't muck around you get them removed.

I don't see this an issue for the Buddhist practitioner to decide, any more than the Buddhist practitioner should tell other people not to eat meat. If you feel eating meat is wrong or unskillful in terms of your practice then don't eat it, if you feel executing violent criminals is wrong or unskillful in terms of your practice then don't work in the correctional system. It's governments that decide these things and when it's time to vote that's when you can exersize your conscience.

In most western countries the majority of people don't agree with capital punishment I think, but if the government decided it were no longer going to use taxpayers money to provide free board and lodging for the repeat violent offenders how many people would be interested in a supporting a World Vision type sponsor a repeat violent offender program?

It may be true that society ends up with blood on it's hands, the same is true if we do nothing when we know the likelihood or reoffending is high, the only difference is the level of innocence of the one who dies.

There are a lot of programmes to help rehabilitate criminals out there, a few of them Buddhist, I'd rather they spent their time an efforts helping the majority criminals who are not beyond help, rather than the few who are.

[mizzi39]

Is capital punishment out of line with Buddhist principles, or is it actually in line with the laws of karma.

[garro]

Is capital punishment out of line with Buddhist principles, or is it actually in line with the laws of karma.

In my understanding of Buddhism we are encouraged to purify our minds from hatred and develop universal compassion. These noble qualities are hardly likely to develop in the minds of people who support the murder of their fellow humans - in my opinion.

It is also worthwhile nothing that some of the most brutal and savage murders occur in countries which have the death penalty so the argument that it is for the better good seems naive.

As the Buddha said;

Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill.

This view of the Buddha makes the Buddhist view on capital punishment very clear - at least to me.

[njpski]

Imposing the death penalty might actually absolve the wrongdoer of the crime and thus lead them to a better existence in their next incarnation and as a corollary cause the executioner to have bad karma

[camerata]

In most western countries the majority of people don't agree with capital punishment I think, but if the government decided it were no longer going to use taxpayers money to provide free board and lodging for the repeat violent offenders how many people would be interested in a supporting a World Vision type sponsor a repeat violent offender program?

Or if the question of prison for murders was tied directly to taxes! If the government said that life imprisonment for serial murderers would necessitate increased income tax for all, how many of us would vote for that? Personally, I would prefer to see them live, but no more lazing around in jail watching TV. Put them on a chain gang breaking rocks or doing something else that helps pay for the cost of keeping them alive.

[camerata]

I am for the death penalty as well, but Thailand seems to choose the wrong dudes to kill off.

Who exactly are the wrong dudes? The few criminals Thailand executes are murderers and heroin traffickers. The logic in the case of traffickers is that their actions inevitably lead to multiple deaths (from overdose etc) and, in the Buddhist sense, much craving and suffering among addicts and their families.

[camerata]

Pretty much every major religion disagrees with capital punishment (with Islam probably being the exception). So Buddhists execute people. Well so do Christians in the United States (what about turning the other cheek, or vengeance is mine sayeth the lord, or he who is without sin cast the first stone). I am actually for the death penalty, thought I think long term incarceration is a fate worst than death. But the only nations that still have capital punishment, is the one really advanced one-THe USA, or the third world ones (like thailand). Does that say anything? Not trying to make a poignant point here or anything...just trying to figure out why that is.

I think a government should enact laws that reflect the will of the people. With laws, most people put their personal interests and safety above their nominal religion. And in any case, only a small percentage of any population is seriously religious and concerned about the core beliefs of the religion. In Thailand, we can see from the public's silence over the government-condoned extra-judicial killings in the war on drugs that most people didn't care about the deaths of the guilty or innocent as long as it stopped the bare-chested, knife-wielding addicts from threatening their children every month. It's the same with the death penalty.

[clausewitz]

. It seems very odd to me that anyone claiming to be a Buddhist could support the death penalty - not that I am trying to say who is or isn't Buddhist just that I do not understand this view at all. Perhaps I am missing out on teachings and the Buddha did advocate killing certain people? I would be interested in hearing about any evidence to support this view.

By this reasoning people who have sex are not Buddhist - if they are show me where the Buddha advocated having sex? Or people who enjoy the pleasures of eating food - look at the suttas where Buddha said food should be taken as only a medicine.

Where did the Buddha prohibit governments executing people,? in there are many suttas where they mention this or that person was executed, but none where the Buddha asks a King to stop judicial killing. Buddha's explain Dhamma and the reults of kamma, even killing a mosquito larva is wrong kamma, so why not start a campaign to outlaw any attempt to stop malaria by killing mosquito eggs.

Of course the less than a dozen executions in thailand each year is rather less than the thousands of abortions legally carried out.

[garro]

. It seems very odd to me that anyone claiming to be a Buddhist could support the death penalty - not that I am trying to say who is or isn't Buddhist just that I do not understand this view at all. Perhaps I am missing out on teachings and the Buddha did advocate killing certain people? I would be interested in hearing about any evidence to support this view.

By this reasoning people who have sex are not Buddhist - if they are show me where the Buddha advocated having sex? Or people who enjoy the pleasures of eating food - look at the suttas where Buddha said food should be taken as only a medicine.

Where did the Buddha prohibit governments executing people,? in there are many suttas where they mention this or that person was executed, but none where the Buddha asks a King to stop judicial killing. Buddha's explain Dhamma and the reults of kamma, even killing a mosquito larva is wrong kamma, so why not start a campaign to outlaw any attempt to stop malaria by killing mosquito eggs.

Of course the less than a dozen executions in thailand each year is rather less than the thousands of abortions legally carried out.

Are you really equating killing people with pleasure from food or sex? I am sorry, but I can't really debate with your reasoning if this is the case.

[rockyysdt]

In our country we have no death penalty, there are regularly news items where a violent criminal has been relased on parole only to re-offend.

My ego self often thinks that removing muderers from the gene pool is a good thing, but deep down I'm uncomfortable with it.

I'd prefer true life sentences for murder and extreme crime where "for life" means "for life".

Yes you are right that the person I am today is not the same person I was yesterday, but past kamma gives rise to future kamma and some few lives are so stuck in destructive patterns that they show no sign of being rehabilitated from their past kamma in this lifetime, these are the ones I'm talking about. If life is precious as you say then future victims deserve protection from these people.

Wouldn't killing someone prematurely remove that persons ability to overcome the state they've inherited and therefore not allow them to commence the creation of merit? Killing them will guarantee rebirth of a negative khamma.

In most western countries the majority of people don't agree with capital punishment I think, but if the government decided it were no longer going to use taxpayers money to provide free board and lodging for the repeat violent offenders how many people would be interested in a supporting a World Vision type sponsor a repeat violent offender program?

I think it's all about being more organised. Prison inmates are a resource which could be tapped to produce a cost neutral enterprise.

There are a lot of programmes to help rehabilitate criminals out there, a few of them Buddhist, I'd rather they spent their time an efforts helping the majority criminals who are not beyond help, rather than the few who are.

Whether it's due to khamma or other reasons, I suspect we're not all born equally.

Differences which can lead to criminal behaviour include IQ level, mental immaturity, poor parenting, abuse, low socio economic background, drug addiction, and so on.

Many offenders might have lived totally different lives had they been exposed to a different environment.

It's a shame not to be able to show compassion and direction to these lost beings, due to a lack of resource.

Edited October 6, 2008 by rockyysdt

[DavidBrook]

This is often a topic of conversation with westerners - if Thailand is a Buddhist country why do they have the death penalty?

It is because Thailand is not a Buddhist country. It is a country that *says* it is a Buddhist country.

D

[Brucenkhamen]

My ego self often thinks that removing muderers from the gene pool is a good thing, but deep down I'm uncomfortable with it.

I'd prefer true life sentences for murder and extreme crime where "for life" means "for life"..

I'm uncomfortable with it also. The problem is as I see it we are too earnest to look after the rights of the criminals at the expense of the rights of the victims and the rights of society as a whole

[dave_boo]

Pretty much every major religion disagrees with capital punishment (with Islam probably being the exception). So Buddhists execute people. Well so do Christians in the United States (what about turning the other cheek, or vengeance is mine sayeth the lord, or he who is without sin cast the first stone). I am actually for the death penalty, thought I think long term incarceration is a fate worst than death. But the only nations that still have capital punishment, is the one really advanced one-THe USA, or the third world ones (like thailand). Does that say anything? Not trying to make a poignant point here or anything...just trying to figure out why that is.

FWIW, that dude also said "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's...", clearly delineating the separation of church and state. One of the duties of a State is to maintain order. Now if everyone loved puppies and ice cream that duty would be subliminally easy. However, there's always going to be those that love to torture puppies and knock ice cream cones out of other's hands. Thus, in order for a society to function where the majority of its population is not afraid of each other, certain societies have decided that the death penalty is a good deterrent.

But back to the Jesus dude. If the accounts are to be believed, nowhere does he mention that the State does not have the ability to exert its control. In fact, IIRC, he went quite willingly to his execution, staying the hands of his followers who attempted to prevent the arrest. I do think that some of his teachings, especially those regarding inter-personal relationships, are extremely well thought out. I just also believe that those references you listed where for that; interpersonal relationships.

[unforgiven]

This is often a topic of conversation with westerners - if Thailand is a Buddhist country why do they have the death penalty?

Hey I'm not a proponent of capital punishment, but lets face it there are some circumstances where it's just.Premeditation for money is just one example Ya know their aware of what their faced with but they still choose to roll the dice.Although many would prefer death to a life sentence in a Thai prison

Edited October 12, 2008 by camerata
Off-topic comment deleted.

[rockyysdt]

FWIW, that dude also said "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's...", clearly delineating the separation of church and state. One of the duties of a State is to maintain order. Now if everyone loved puppies and ice cream that duty would be subliminally easy. However, there's always going to be those that love to torture puppies and knock ice cream cones out of other's hands. Thus, in order for a society to function where the majority of its population is not afraid of each other, certain societies have decided that the death penalty is a good deterrent.

But back to the Jesus dude. If the accounts are to be believed, nowhere does he mention that the State does not have the ability to exert its control. In fact, IIRC, he went quite willingly to his execution, staying the hands of his followers who attempted to prevent the arrest. I do think that some of his teachings, especially those regarding inter-personal relationships, are extremely well thought out. I just also believe that those references you listed where for that; interpersonal relationships.

Hi Dave.

If you follow christianity you are probably correct. In fact christianity will allow you to kill in many situations, such as cursing your father, faking virginity at your wedding, homosexuality, sex with your mother in law, etc. There are dozens of situations.

Leviticus 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

The issue with Buddhism is that we have learned that each of us possess some kind of force which we call khamma.This khamma alters depending on the merit of its owners deeds through life, becoming more negative or positive over time.

That this khamma becomes released upon the owners death and is inherited when a new person is born, thus continuing a cycle of rebirth and suffering.

Should an owner of this khamma become enlightened, then his khamma will be released from this cycle of rebirth thus ending suffering for his lineage.

If you execute a murderer, then his negative khamma will be inherited by another who will suffer and may also go on to murder.

Apparently, the correct thing to do is to help such people to positively alter their lives, and become more aware, in order to positively improve their khamma.

Edited October 11, 2008 by rockyysdt

[dave_boo]

FWIW, that dude also said "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's...", clearly delineating the separation of church and state. One of the duties of a State is to maintain order. Now if everyone loved puppies and ice cream that duty would be subliminally easy. However, there's always going to be those that love to torture puppies and knock ice cream cones out of other's hands. Thus, in order for a society to function where the majority of its population is not afraid of each other, certain societies have decided that the death penalty is a good deterrent.

But back to the Jesus dude. If the accounts are to be believed, nowhere does he mention that the State does not have the ability to exert its control. In fact, IIRC, he went quite willingly to his execution, staying the hands of his followers who attempted to prevent the arrest. I do think that some of his teachings, especially those regarding inter-personal relationships, are extremely well thought out. I just also believe that those references you listed where for that; interpersonal relationships.

Hi Dave.

If you follow christianity you are probably correct. In fact christianity will allow you to kill in many situations, such as cursing your father, faking virginity at your wedding, homosexuality, sex with your mother in law, etc. There are dozens of situations.

Leviticus 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

The issue with Buddhism is that we have learned that each of us possess some kind of force which we call khamma.This khamma alters depending on the merit of its owners deeds through life, becoming more negative or positive over time.

That this khamma becomes released upon the owners death and is inherited when a new person is born, thus continuing a cycle of rebirth and suffering.

Should an owner of this khamma become enlightened, then his khamma will be released from this cycle of rebirth thus ending suffering for his lineage.

If you execute a murderer, then his negative khamma will be inherited by another who will suffer and may also go on to murder.

Apparently, the correct thing to do is to help such people to positively alter their lives, and become more aware, in order to positively improve their khamma.

Actually, and I could be very wrong about this, I think those are just commandments pertaining to Judaism. Once again, going on my memory, if it wasn't repeated in the New Testament, it's no longer valid for Christians.

The biggest problem I have with religions is the presumption of an afterlife. Few have any anecdotes about prelifes (Buddhism being the obvious exception) so what makes sense about having an afterlife? I think it's the conceit of people who would like to think that their lives have meaning, and thus there's no reason that they should not continue. I do NOT believe that life has meaning (other than the number 42) and thus do not believe in any other life than the 75 or so years we get here on earth. Now I'm not saying that I couldn't be convinced otherwise, but I would have to have compelling proof, not just some guy way back when saying that is the way it is.

But back to Buddhism; it's interesting that bad khamma can be 'passed on'. Whether you were speaking of to another being or oneself upon reincarnation was not clearly stated. Who/What is keeping track of this khamma? Is there some sort of omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient force that keeps track of these things? If that's true, I have the following questions; how can Tibet, which is full of Tibetan monks who are constantly meditating and following Buddhist principles be embroiled in such conflict, or is it the natural order of things since the whole world is full of sorrow and pain and one should attempt to meditate one self’s to a higher plane (which means, if there's is only sorrow and pain, why do Buddhists seek medical care or attempt to throw off the yoke currently around their necks)?

I'm very much for a separation of church and state; I think that a state should be totally amoral, otherwise it than becomes a vessel for certain moralities. And nobody's moralities should be forced upon another. In the case of the death penalty, murders know that it is immoral to take another's life based on their upbringing (obviously there are exceptions with mentally retarded persons), and they also know that the state can not allow lawlessness to take over. Thus the state sanctions the murder of the murderer, and that's what it is. However, if the state is truly amoral, and not doing it based on morality but rather an established set of rules I fail to see the problem. For those that are opposed to the death penalty, which I can understand offends their moral views, there are plenty of places to live that have decided that it is not in the best interest of the state to execute people. There's also the opportunity of attempting to change the state's statutes to become more in line with what you believe is moral; however that trips up into the separation of church and state. Thus, in order to reconcile your morals with state action, you have to provide an amoral reason for the state to NOT execute people.

[rockyysdt]

I have to preface by saying I'm not an expert and my reply should be taken as personal view.

Actually, and I could be very wrong about this, I think those are just commandments pertaining to Judaism. Once again, going on my memory, if it wasn't repeated in the New Testament, it's no longer valid for Christians.

The only difference between Jadaism and Christianity is that the Jews never accepted Jesus as the prophesied coming of the Lord.

As far as the New Testament rendering previous scriptures obsolete, this is a misnomer.

Jesus said:

Matthew 5:17-18 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished.

But back to Buddhism; it's interesting that bad khamma can be 'passed on'. Whether you were speaking of to another being or oneself upon reincarnation was not clearly stated. Who/What is keeping track of this khamma? Is there some sort of omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient force that keeps track of these things?

Based on the writings of Buddha as confirmed by others on this forum, when we die, our body, mind, thoughts, feelings and ego perish.

The teaching speak of a cycle of rebirth, and as a result suffering. If we cannot be reborn, then it is thought that it must be our Khamma.

As far as there being a ledger which keeps account of what has happened and what will happen as a consequence, we don't know.

What has been said is that each of us have an opportunity to experience enlightenment and the answers to our questions by direct experience.

If you don't experience it then you can walk away.

If that's true, I have the following questions; how can Tibet, which is full of Tibetan monks who are constantly meditating and following Buddhist principles be embroiled in such conflict, or is it the natural order of things since the whole world is full of sorrow and pain and one should attempt to meditate one self's to a higher plane (which means, if there's is only sorrow and pain, why do Buddhists seek medical care or attempt to throw off the yoke currently around their necks)?

We don't know.

Perhaps the khamma they enherited was so bad their level of suffering has been great.

Also what appears to us may not be. A frocked monk is not a reflection of the state of his heart.

Who knows what level of commitment each person lives.

We are all self deluded to various degrees and many of us convince ourselves we are doing good things.

I'm very much for a separation of church and state; I think that a state should be totally amoral, otherwise it than becomes a vessel for certain moralities. And nobody's moralities should be forced upon another. In the case of the death penalty, murders know that it is immoral to take another's life based on their upbringing (obviously there are exceptions with mentally retarded persons), and they also know that the state can not allow lawlessness to take over. Thus the state sanctions the murder of the murderer, and that's what it is. However, if the state is truly amoral, and not doing it based on morality but rather an established set of rules I fail to see the problem. For those that are opposed to the death penalty, which I can understand offends their moral views, there are plenty of places to live that have decided that it is not in the best interest of the state to execute people. There's also the opportunity of attempting to change the state's statutes to become more in line with what you believe is moral; however that trips up into the separation of church and state. Thus, in order to reconcile your morals with state action, you have to provide an amoral reason for the state to NOT execute people.

This brings us back to the topic.

Why does a Buddhist country have the death penalty?

[Brucenkhamen]

Actually, and I could be very wrong about this, I think those are just commandments pertaining to Judaism. Once again, going on my memory, if it wasn't repeated in the New Testament, it's no longer valid for Christians.

You've got a good point there, but as it's off topic no need to go further into it.

The biggest problem I have with religions is the presumption of an afterlife. Few have any anecdotes about prelifes (Buddhism being the obvious exception) so what makes sense about having an afterlife? I think it's the conceit of people who would like to think that their lives have meaning, and thus there's no reason that they should not continue. .

I agree with this one too.

But back to Buddhism; it's interesting that bad khamma can be 'passed on'. Whether you were speaking of to another being or oneself upon reincarnation was not clearly stated. Who/What is keeping track of this khamma? Is there some sort of omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient force that keeps track of these things?

Kamma is the law of cause and affect, the same way that because the sun rose the sun sets, because it set then it rises again. Or because a wave comes into shore it goes out again, because it went out it comes back in again. Nobody is keeping track of these, it's just a natural law, kamma is just an extension of this.

If that's true, I have the following questions; how can Tibet, which is full of Tibetan monks who are constantly meditating and following Buddhist principles be embroiled in such conflict, or is it the natural order of things since the whole world is full of sorrow and pain and one should attempt to meditate one self’s to a higher plane (which means, if there's is only sorrow and pain, why do Buddhists seek medical care or attempt to throw off the yoke currently around their necks)?

You are assuming that what has happened to the Tibetans is a bad thing. If it hadn't happened then the Tibetans would still be isolated in their little mountain kingdom with their strange little known religion and Tibetan Buddhism wouldn't be one of the fastest growing religions in the West that it is today. Maybe what happened happened for a reason.

In Buddhist terms it's not so much whether you are experiencing good times or adversity, it's how you respond to what you are experiencing which is important.

[bankei]

There is no such thing as a Buddhist country. Just Buddhist individuals. Thailand may have a majority of the people declaring themselves Buddhist - but not everyone follows the teachings. I think one of the major precepts - the first one - is not to kill. So those who kill - executioners are not following the teachings. Law drafters are probably also not following the teachings - although they could argue they don't kill, but just made the rules - people break them of their own will. Judges who sentance people to death may also not be following the teachings.

Also one a practical level, think of how many innocent people are sent to their death - especially in countries like Thailand without the strong legal systems. Once you kill someone you cannot bring them back.