Buddhism And The Death Penalty

[ClaytonSeymour]

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.

Exactly, an executed criminal is unable to perpetrate further crimes - one of several good reasons for having the death penalty.

[ClaytonSeymour]

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.

Exactly, an executed criminal is unable to perpetrate further crimes - one of several good reasons for having the death penalty.

[lazeeboy]

dont agree with the death penalty ,but give someone life and make them do it ,with no parole ........period

[camerata]

Googling around for info on ahimsa (Pali: avihimsa), or "harmlessness," I came across this sentence citing K.T.S. Sarao's The Origin and Nature of Ancient Indian Buddhism:

Unlike the Vedic religion, ancient Buddhism had strong misgivings about violent ways of punishing criminals and about war. Both were not explicitly condemned, but peaceful ways of conflict resolution and punishment with the least amount of injury were encouraged.

Off-hand, since the time of India's King Ashoka, the only country I can think of that had no death penalty because of Buddhist principles was Heian-era Japan (794-1195). They exiled people instead, usually to the island of Sado.

Traditionally, Theravada Buddhism doesn't place a lot of weight on indirect action. If you kill an animal, it's bad. If you indirectly cause an animal to be killed by wearing leather shoes, it's not a big deal. I think that's how people in Thailand think of it (and it seems to be the way the Buddha in the Pali Canon thought of it). The executioner who pulls the trigger reaps the fruit of massive bad kamma, but not the politicians who pass the death-penalty law or the people who voted for the politicians. The person who catches birds and fish generates bad kamma, but not the people who free them at the temple.

[garro]

The only purpose that I see in the death penalty is that it allows an outlet for people's bitterness and viciousness. These are emotions which should be discouraged and not promoted by governments. If somebody harmed my child of course I would want revenge, but I would not expect a government to kill on my behalf.

I am not aware of any evidence that state sanctioned murder reduces violent crime. In fact many of those places which have the death penalty also have the most brutal and sickening criminals; places such as Saudi Arabia and the United States.

Capital punishment is a political tool used by politicians to win votes. For example in the US the chance of being murdered by the state has little to do with the viciousness of your crime, but is more to do with where you committed the crime, who the local politicians in your area are, and your ability to buy a good defense. It also has a lot to do with how the media decides to tell your story. If some shit 'news' group like Fox decides your guilty then you are screwed before you even arrive in court. Fair and balanced my arse.I continue to find it hard to understand how any Buddhist can justify murder under these circumstances. There must be a better way.

Edited October 13, 2008 by garro

[ClaytonSeymour]

The only purpose that I see in the death penalty is that it allows an outlet for people's bitterness and viciousness. These are emotions which should be discouraged and not promoted by governments. If somebody harmed my child of course I would want revenge, but I would not expect a government to kill on my behalf. I haven't got children, but, I can assure you if someone harmed my child - I would feel betrayed if the government didn't kill them. Expanding on this, if someone entered my property, either to steal, vandalise, cause harm to myself, family, or guests - I wouldn't hesitate to cause them serious harm, including killing them if necessary.

I am not aware of any evidence that state sanctioned murder reduces violent crime. In fact many of those places which have the death penalty also have the most brutal and sickening criminals; places such as Saudi Arabia and the United States.

If you take away terrorism related crime, you'll find that middle eastern countries are much safer than most other countries, including (Buddhist) Thailand. Singapore is certainly a very safe & clean country - probably the best example of how law & order should be enforced.

Capital punishment is a political tool used by politicians to win votes. For example in the US the chance of being murdered by the state has little to do with the viciousness of your crime, but is more to do with where you committed the crime, who the local politicians in your area are, and your ability to buy a good defense. It also has a lot to do with how the media decides to tell your story. If some shit 'news' group like Fox decides your guilty then you are screwed before you even arrive in court. Fair and balanced my arse.I continue to find it hard to understand how any Buddhist can justify murder under these circumstances. There must be a better way. Unless they find a way of genetically altering the human race to prevent them from committing crime there will never be a better way. As another poster said, you don't try to rehabilitate cancer cells, of course you should try to prevent it from occurring in the first place, but, once it's there you destroy them - murderers & their like are no different.

[whatsoever]

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.

So you are all for killing people - even though its well documented that innocents are also excuted. I suppose you are from that 'really advanced nation' - the USA Personaly I would say that most of the population of said country are backward and extremley ignorant.

Not trying to make poignant point - meaning

PS One must consider that many world leaders do not follow mainstream religions - unless you consider Lucifairianism mainstream!

[camerata]

The only purpose that I see in the death penalty is that it allows an outlet for people's bitterness and viciousness.

I think that's over-simplifying a complex subject. I've read a lot of accounts of serial rapists/killers in which the victims' family gets an important sense of retribution and "closure" from knowing that the killer got his just desserts - in this life rather than the next.

[garro]

The only purpose that I see in the death penalty is that it allows an outlet for people's bitterness and viciousness. These are emotions which should be discouraged and not promoted by governments. If somebody harmed my child of course I would want revenge, but I would not expect a government to kill on my behalf. I haven't got children, but, I can assure you if someone harmed my child - I would feel betrayed if the government didn't kill them. Expanding on this, if someone entered my property, either to steal, vandalise, cause harm to myself, family, or guests - I wouldn't hesitate to cause them serious harm, including killing them if necessary.

I am not aware of any evidence that state sanctioned murder reduces violent crime. In fact many of those places which have the death penalty also have the most brutal and sickening criminals; places such as Saudi Arabia and the United States.

If you take away terrorism related crime, you'll find that middle eastern countries are much safer than most other countries, including (Buddhist) Thailand. Singapore is certainly a very safe & clean country - probably the best example of how law & order should be enforced.

Capital punishment is a political tool used by politicians to win votes. For example in the US the chance of being murdered by the state has little to do with the viciousness of your crime, but is more to do with where you committed the crime, who the local politicians in your area are, and your ability to buy a good defense. It also has a lot to do with how the media decides to tell your story. If some shit 'news' group like Fox decides your guilty then you are screwed before you even arrive in court. Fair and balanced my arse.I continue to find it hard to understand how any Buddhist can justify murder under these circumstances. There must be a better way. Unless they find a way of genetically altering the human race to prevent them from committing crime there will never be a better way. As another poster said, you don't try to rehabilitate cancer cells, of course you should try to prevent it from occurring in the first place, but, once it's there you destroy them - murderers & their like are no different.

Your claim in regards to violent crime in the Middle-East seems naive to me. I spent some time working on a trauma unit in Riyadh and can tell you that most of the violent crime is never reported in the news or in official statistics. The same way that they refuse to acknowledge that people have drug problems or HIV in these countries. This type of bad news is just not reported or talked about. It is less risky to say that someone died in a car crash then in a shooting. So perhaps you are putting too much reliance on statistics; unless of course you have a more reliable source for your information.

It is easy to equate human life with cancer cells as this impersonalization makes it easier to deal with them in a harsh manner and not as humans with feelings and emotions. It seems a strange attitude for a Buddhist to hold though - in my opinion.

Edited October 13, 2008 by garro

[garro]

The only purpose that I see in the death penalty is that it allows an outlet for people's bitterness and viciousness.

I think that's over-simplifying a complex subject. I've read a lot of accounts of serial rapists/killers in which the victims' family gets an important sense of retribution and "closure" from knowing that the killer got his just desserts - in this life rather than the next.

I am just not sure that Buddhists should be encouraging this sense of closure. I feel that a much better outcome would come if the families were helped to manage their grief. Creating another family of grievers just seems a bit self-defeating. Many murders occur in a moment of madness. I am not sure if there is anyone who can fairly determine if someone is mad or bad.

[ClaytonSeymour]

The only purpose that I see in the death penalty is that it allows an outlet for people's bitterness and viciousness. These are emotions which should be discouraged and not promoted by governments. If somebody harmed my child of course I would want revenge, but I would not expect a government to kill on my behalf. I haven't got children, but, I can assure you if someone harmed my child - I would feel betrayed if the government didn't kill them. Expanding on this, if someone entered my property, either to steal, vandalise, cause harm to myself, family, or guests - I wouldn't hesitate to cause them serious harm, including killing them if necessary.

I am not aware of any evidence that state sanctioned murder reduces violent crime. In fact many of those places which have the death penalty also have the most brutal and sickening criminals; places such as Saudi Arabia and the United States.

If you take away terrorism related crime, you'll find that middle eastern countries are much safer than most other countries, including (Buddhist) Thailand. Singapore is certainly a very safe & clean country - probably the best example of how law & order should be enforced.

Capital punishment is a political tool used by politicians to win votes. For example in the US the chance of being murdered by the state has little to do with the viciousness of your crime, but is more to do with where you committed the crime, who the local politicians in your area are, and your ability to buy a good defense. It also has a lot to do with how the media decides to tell your story. If some shit 'news' group like Fox decides your guilty then you are screwed before you even arrive in court. Fair and balanced my arse.I continue to find it hard to understand how any Buddhist can justify murder under these circumstances. There must be a better way. Unless they find a way of genetically altering the human race to prevent them from committing crime there will never be a better way. As another poster said, you don't try to rehabilitate cancer cells, of course you should try to prevent it from occurring in the first place, but, once it's there you destroy them - murderers & their like are no different.

Your claim in regards to violent crime in the Middle-East seems naive to me. I spent some time working on a trauma unit in Riyadh and can tell you that most of the violent crime is never reported in the news or in official statistics. The same way that they refuse to acknowledge that people have drug problems or HIV in these countries. This type of bad news is just not reported or talked about. It is less risky to say that someone died in a car crash then in a shooting. So perhaps you are putting too much reliance on statistics; unless of course you have a more reliable source for your information. It's not naive at all - whilst I don't dispute that violent crime does occur, as a westerner I personally find it far safer in some middle eastern countries than back in the west, or indeed, Thailand. London or Cairo at night? You've much more to fear in London.

It is easy to equate human life with cancer cells as this impersonalization makes it easier to deal with them in a harsh manner and not as humans with feelings and emotions. It seems a strange attitude for a Buddhist to hold though - in my opinion. I'm not actually a Buddhist, but, the wife is & she firmly believes that if someone killed a member of her family, that the perpetrators should die.

[njpski]

The death penalty does not solve the problem, it just perpetuates violence. Killing someone does not revive the victim of a murder.

If the death penalty was truly effective then countries which routinely execute their citizens for crimes should, in a very short time, have no need to enforce the penalty because no-one would commit those crimes. Please show me where the death penalty is effective!!!

Is not the executioner a taker of life?

[ClaytonSeymour]

The only purpose that I see in the death penalty is that it allows an outlet for people's bitterness and viciousness.

I think that's over-simplifying a complex subject. I've read a lot of accounts of serial rapists/killers in which the victims' family gets an important sense of retribution and "closure" from knowing that the killer got his just desserts - in this life rather than the next.

I am just not sure that Buddhists should be encouraging this sense of closure. I feel that a much better outcome would come if the families were helped to manage their grief. Creating another family of grievers just seems a bit self-defeating. Many murders occur in a moment of madness. I am not sure if there is anyone who can fairly determine if someone is mad or bad.

Whilst people such as yourself may benefit from grief management, for others, it simply wouldn't cut. In most circumstances, I'd have no sympathy whatsoever with those grieving a murderer? Whilst some 'murders' do occur in a moment of madness, many don't. What about serial killers? Surely, it's fairly easy to declare them bad.

[ClaytonSeymour]

The death penalty does not solve the problem, it just perpetuates violence. Killing someone does not revive the victim of a murder. No, but it provides revenge (nothing wrong with that), it's the only 100% guarantee for preventing the killer from killing again & I believe for sane people - it's a deterrent.

If the death penalty was truly effective then countries which routinely execute their citizens for crimes should, in a very short time, have no need to enforce the penalty because no-one would commit those crimes. Please show me where the death penalty is effective!!! It's not really quantifiable, but, I'd hazard at a guess that some of the executed criminals certainly would have killed again. I also firmly believe that it dissuades some (not all) would be drug smugglers. I actually don't believe it's employed enough in first world countries (where people have more to lose) for its success to be measured effectively. I believe that Singapore's justice works & given that includes both capital & corporal punishment, I'll conclude it's effective there.

Is not the executioner a taker of life? No, he's the deliverer of justice - the taker of the wicked.

[garro]

The only purpose that I see in the death penalty is that it allows an outlet for people's bitterness and viciousness.

I think that's over-simplifying a complex subject. I've read a lot of accounts of serial rapists/killers in which the victims' family gets an important sense of retribution and "closure" from knowing that the killer got his just desserts - in this life rather than the next.

I am just not sure that Buddhists should be encouraging this sense of closure. I feel that a much better outcome would come if the families were helped to manage their grief. Creating another family of grievers just seems a bit self-defeating. Many murders occur in a moment of madness. I am not sure if there is anyone who can fairly determine if someone is mad or bad.

Whilst people such as yourself may benefit from grief management, for others, it simply wouldn't cut. In most circumstances, I'd have no sympathy whatsoever with those grieving a murderer? Whilst some 'murders' do occur in a moment of madness, many don't. What about serial killers? Surely, it's fairly easy to declare them bad.

I doubt that people who commit vile murders are sane. Many of these people have probably suffered extreme abuse themselves to end up in such a mess.

Capital punishment is grossly unfair and not just because of the fact that it involves killing people. Not all murders will be punished with the death penalty. As I mentioned earlier a lot will depend on where and when the murder occurred and how much money they can spend on a defense. People who are sentenced to death may spend decades waiting for this day to come - cruel an unusual punishment. Legal costs in appeals will cost far more than life in prison in many cases. The person who committed the act will not be the same person they execute years later.

A small section of people who grieve the death of a loved one will get to see the person who committed the act murdered in revenge. Most will not. They will not be executing drunken drivers and they will not be executing those who drop bombs on Afghanistan villages and murder children. Where is the fairness in that?

Edited October 13, 2008 by garro

[ClaytonSeymour]

The only purpose that I see in the death penalty is that it allows an outlet for people's bitterness and viciousness.

I think that's over-simplifying a complex subject. I've read a lot of accounts of serial rapists/killers in which the victims' family gets an important sense of retribution and "closure" from knowing that the killer got his just desserts - in this life rather than the next.

I am just not sure that Buddhists should be encouraging this sense of closure. I feel that a much better outcome would come if the families were helped to manage their grief. Creating another family of grievers just seems a bit self-defeating. Many murders occur in a moment of madness. I am not sure if there is anyone who can fairly determine if someone is mad or bad.

Whilst people such as yourself may benefit from grief management, for others, it simply wouldn't cut. In most circumstances, I'd have no sympathy whatsoever with those grieving a murderer? Whilst some 'murders' do occur in a moment of madness, many don't. What about serial killers? Surely, it's fairly easy to declare them bad.

I doubt that people who commit vile murders are sane. Many of these people have probably suffered extreme abuse themselves to end up in such a mess. Many dogs that bite people have been mistreated - we still put them down. The security of the multitude is paramount & the past abuse suffered by these people is no excuse to spare them of the death they deserve.

Capital punishment is grossly unfair and not just because of the fact that it involves killing people. Not all murders will be punished with the death penalty. As I mentioned earlier a lot will depend on where and when the murder occurred and how much money they can spend on a defense. That's the way the cookie crumbles. People who are sentenced to death may spend decades waiting for this day to come - cruel an unusual punishment. Legal costs in appeals will cost far more than life in prison in many cases. I certainly agree that the process should be much quicker & shouldn't 'hurt' the taxpayers - justice should be swift - swift & merciless. The person who committed the act will not be the same person they execute years later. Well, that's just tough on their part, but, as I've already said, they shouldn't be allowed to hang around (excuse the pun) so long.

A small section of people who grieve the death of a loved one will get to see the person who committed the act murdered in revenge. Most will not. They will not be executing drunken drivers and they will not be executing those who drop bombs on Afghanistan villages and murder children. Where is the fairness in that? I do agree that drunken drivers should face stiffer sentences, but, that's about the definition of the crime & in most countries - it's not murder. Why should they execute those who drop bombs on terrorist havens? As with the death penalty, that's about protecting the multitude. For most of us, at some point life will be unfair - it's something you have to deal with.

[njpski]

Clayton, Clayton!

Singapore which does not allow chewing gum is hardly an example of a country to aspire to.

The executioner - a deliverer of justice? Very presumptuous of the state to know with such conviction what is justice.

Killing a person does not enlighten them.

[garro]

The only purpose that I see in the death penalty is that it allows an outlet for people's bitterness and viciousness.

I think that's over-simplifying a complex subject. I've read a lot of accounts of serial rapists/killers in which the victims' family gets an important sense of retribution and "closure" from knowing that the killer got his just desserts - in this life rather than the next.

I am just not sure that Buddhists should be encouraging this sense of closure. I feel that a much better outcome would come if the families were helped to manage their grief. Creating another family of grievers just seems a bit self-defeating. Many murders occur in a moment of madness. I am not sure if there is anyone who can fairly determine if someone is mad or bad.

Whilst people such as yourself may benefit from grief management, for others, it simply wouldn't cut. In most circumstances, I'd have no sympathy whatsoever with those grieving a murderer? Whilst some 'murders' do occur in a moment of madness, many don't. What about serial killers? Surely, it's fairly easy to declare them bad.

I doubt that people who commit vile murders are sane. Many of these people have probably suffered extreme abuse themselves to end up in such a mess. Many dogs that bite people have been mistreated - we still put them down. The security of the multitude is paramount & the past abuse suffered by these people is no excuse to spare them of the death they deserve.

Capital punishment is grossly unfair and not just because of the fact that it involves killing people. Not all murders will be punished with the death penalty. As I mentioned earlier a lot will depend on where and when the murder occurred and how much money they can spend on a defense. That's the way the cookie crumbles. People who are sentenced to death may spend decades waiting for this day to come - cruel an unusual punishment. Legal costs in appeals will cost far more than life in prison in many cases. I certainly agree that the process should be much quicker & shouldn't 'hurt' the taxpayers - justice should be swift - swift & merciless. The person who committed the act will not be the same person they execute years later. Well, that's just tough on their part, but, as I've already said, they shouldn't be allowed to hang around (excuse the pun) so long.

A small section of people who grieve the death of a loved one will get to see the person who committed the act murdered in revenge. Most will not. They will not be executing drunken drivers and they will not be executing those who drop bombs on Afghanistan villages and murder children. Where is the fairness in that? I do agree that drunken drivers should face stiffer sentences, but, that's about the definition of the crime & in most countries - it's not murder. Why should they execute those who drop bombs on terrorist havens? As with the death penalty, that's about protecting the multitude. For most of us, at some point life will be unfair - it's something you have to deal with.

Luckily people in your home country saw how barbaric capital punishment was and got rid of it, but not before they executed many wrong people and others who should not have been executed; Derek Bentley being one such example.

It was interesting that at the sentencing of the Guildford four the judge remarked that if he had the power he would execute them. The case was later squashed. This incident was not unique. You may be able to reduce life to Bentham's utilitarianism, but I think that Buddhists should think beyond this.

[ClaytonSeymour]

The only purpose that I see in the death penalty is that it allows an outlet for people's bitterness and viciousness.

I think that's over-simplifying a complex subject. I've read a lot of accounts of serial rapists/killers in which the victims' family gets an important sense of retribution and "closure" from knowing that the killer got his just desserts - in this life rather than the next.

I am just not sure that Buddhists should be encouraging this sense of closure. I feel that a much better outcome would come if the families were helped to manage their grief. Creating another family of grievers just seems a bit self-defeating. Many murders occur in a moment of madness. I am not sure if there is anyone who can fairly determine if someone is mad or bad.

Whilst people such as yourself may benefit from grief management, for others, it simply wouldn't cut. In most circumstances, I'd have no sympathy whatsoever with those grieving a murderer? Whilst some 'murders' do occur in a moment of madness, many don't. What about serial killers? Surely, it's fairly easy to declare them bad.

I doubt that people who commit vile murders are sane. Many of these people have probably suffered extreme abuse themselves to end up in such a mess. Many dogs that bite people have been mistreated - we still put them down. The security of the multitude is paramount & the past abuse suffered by these people is no excuse to spare them of the death they deserve.

Capital punishment is grossly unfair and not just because of the fact that it involves killing people. Not all murders will be punished with the death penalty. As I mentioned earlier a lot will depend on where and when the murder occurred and how much money they can spend on a defense. That's the way the cookie crumbles. People who are sentenced to death may spend decades waiting for this day to come - cruel an unusual punishment. Legal costs in appeals will cost far more than life in prison in many cases. I certainly agree that the process should be much quicker & shouldn't 'hurt' the taxpayers - justice should be swift - swift & merciless. The person who committed the act will not be the same person they execute years later. Well, that's just tough on their part, but, as I've already said, they shouldn't be allowed to hang around (excuse the pun) so long.

A small section of people who grieve the death of a loved one will get to see the person who committed the act murdered in revenge. Most will not. They will not be executing drunken drivers and they will not be executing those who drop bombs on Afghanistan villages and murder children. Where is the fairness in that? I do agree that drunken drivers should face stiffer sentences, but, that's about the definition of the crime & in most countries - it's not murder. Why should they execute those who drop bombs on terrorist havens? As with the death penalty, that's about protecting the multitude. For most of us, at some point life will be unfair - it's something you have to deal with.

Luckily people in your home country saw how barbaric capital punishment was and got rid of it, but not before they executed many wrong people and others who should not have been executed; Derek Bentley being one such example.

It was interesting that at the sentencing of the Guildford four the judge remarked that if he had the power he would execute them. The case was later squashed. This incident was not unique. You may be able to reduce life to Bentham's utilitarianism, but I think that Buddhists should think beyond this.

I'm not saying he deserved to die, but, whilst he may not have been a murderer, Bentley certainly was a criminal in his own right, so, in that sense he paid dearly for his involvement in crime. I think you'll find that this applies to the vast majority of those wrongly convicted of murder - hence the spotlight falling on them in the first place. I can live with this.

[ClaytonSeymour]

Clayton, Clayton!

Singapore which does not allow chewing gum is hardly an example of a country to aspire to. The ban on chewing gum is no longer the total ban it once was, but, I think a clean, orderly society is something we should all aspire to.

The executioner - a deliverer of justice? Very presumptuous of the state to know with such conviction what is justice. If the permanent removal of a killer isn't justice what is?

Killing a person does not enlighten them. It permanently removes them from the game - no comebacks.

[whatsoever]

The only purpose that I see in the death penalty is that it allows an outlet for people's bitterness and viciousness.

I think that's over-simplifying a complex subject. I've read a lot of accounts of serial rapists/killers in which the victims' family gets an important sense of retribution and "closure" from knowing that the killer got his just desserts - in this life rather than the next.

I am just not sure that Buddhists should be encouraging this sense of closure. I feel that a much better outcome would come if the families were helped to manage their grief. Creating another family of grievers just seems a bit self-defeating. Many murders occur in a moment of madness. I am not sure if there is anyone who can fairly determine if someone is mad or bad.

Whilst people such as yourself may benefit from grief management, for others, it simply wouldn't cut. In most circumstances, I'd have no sympathy whatsoever with those grieving a murderer? Whilst some 'murders' do occur in a moment of madness, many don't. What about serial killers? Surely, it's fairly easy to declare them bad.

So if your son, daughter, mother, father, sister or brother happened to kill someone you would not grieve their execution So what does that make you

[garro]

The only purpose that I see in the death penalty is that it allows an outlet for people's bitterness and viciousness.

I think that's over-simplifying a complex subject. I've read a lot of accounts of serial rapists/killers in which the victims' family gets an important sense of retribution and "closure" from knowing that the killer got his just desserts - in this life rather than the next.

I am just not sure that Buddhists should be encouraging this sense of closure. I feel that a much better outcome would come if the families were helped to manage their grief. Creating another family of grievers just seems a bit self-defeating. Many murders occur in a moment of madness. I am not sure if there is anyone who can fairly determine if someone is mad or bad.

Whilst people such as yourself may benefit from grief management, for others, it simply wouldn't cut. In most circumstances, I'd have no sympathy whatsoever with those grieving a murderer? Whilst some 'murders' do occur in a moment of madness, many don't. What about serial killers? Surely, it's fairly easy to declare them bad.

I doubt that people who commit vile murders are sane. Many of these people have probably suffered extreme abuse themselves to end up in such a mess. Many dogs that bite people have been mistreated - we still put them down. The security of the multitude is paramount & the past abuse suffered by these people is no excuse to spare them of the death they deserve.

Capital punishment is grossly unfair and not just because of the fact that it involves killing people. Not all murders will be punished with the death penalty. As I mentioned earlier a lot will depend on where and when the murder occurred and how much money they can spend on a defense. That's the way the cookie crumbles. People who are sentenced to death may spend decades waiting for this day to come - cruel an unusual punishment. Legal costs in appeals will cost far more than life in prison in many cases. I certainly agree that the process should be much quicker & shouldn't 'hurt' the taxpayers - justice should be swift - swift & merciless. The person who committed the act will not be the same person they execute years later. Well, that's just tough on their part, but, as I've already said, they shouldn't be allowed to hang around (excuse the pun) so long.

A small section of people who grieve the death of a loved one will get to see the person who committed the act murdered in revenge. Most will not. They will not be executing drunken drivers and they will not be executing those who drop bombs on Afghanistan villages and murder children. Where is the fairness in that? I do agree that drunken drivers should face stiffer sentences, but, that's about the definition of the crime & in most countries - it's not murder. Why should they execute those who drop bombs on terrorist havens? As with the death penalty, that's about protecting the multitude. For most of us, at some point life will be unfair - it's something you have to deal with.

Luckily people in your home country saw how barbaric capital punishment was and got rid of it, but not before they executed many wrong people and others who should not have been executed; Derek Bentley being one such example.

It was interesting that at the sentencing of the Guildford four the judge remarked that if he had the power he would execute them. The case was later squashed. This incident was not unique. You may be able to reduce life to Bentham's utilitarianism, but I think that Buddhists should think beyond this.

I'm not saying he deserved to die, but, whilst he may not have been a murderer, Bentley certainly was a criminal in his own right, so, in that sense he paid dearly for his involvement in crime. I think you'll find that this applies to the vast majority of those wrongly convicted of murder - hence the spotlight falling on them in the first place. I can live with this.

The problem with your logic is that you seem to think that most murders are committed by people in the spotlight; in fact the opposite is more true. How many times do you hear about neighbors being shocked because he/she always seemed so normal. You mentioned serial killers earlier ( although these are a tiny fraction of all murderers), these guys are so good because they are not noticed. So your logic seems flawed, because it will only be the few stumbling idiots and people who committed murder in the heat of the moment that will get caught. The really dangerous people will not be in any spotlight.

[camerata]

No, but it provides revenge (nothing wrong with that),

Perhaps not for Christians and Atheists, but revenge is not in accord with Buddhist teachings, which is what this topic is about.

And Clayton, please don't add text inside other posters' quotes, even in different colours. It's very confusing and it isn't good netiquette. It isn't hard to quote multiple sections of text and place answers after each one.

[Naam]

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.

you never read the bible?

[ClaytonSeymour]

The problem with your logic is that you seem to think that most murders are committed by people in the spotlight; in fact the opposite is more true. How many times do you hear about neighbors being shocked because he/she always seemed so normal. You mentioned serial killers earlier ( although these are a tiny fraction of all murderers), these guys are so good because they are not noticed. So your logic seems flawed, because it will only be the few stumbling idiots and people who committed murder in the heat of the moment that will get caught. The really dangerous people will not be in any spotlight.

You've misunderstood me. What I'm saying is that the majority of those wrongly convicted of murder are criminals in their own right.

[ClaytonSeymour]

No, but it provides revenge (nothing wrong with that),

Perhaps not for Christians and Atheists, but revenge is not in accord with Buddhist teachings, which is what this topic is about.

And Clayton, please don't add text inside other posters' quotes, even in different colours. It's very confusing and it isn't good netiquette. It isn't hard to quote multiple sections of text and place answers after each one.

I'm not saying I'm correct, but, I suspect in most cases, the desire for revenge would easily outrun the teachings of Buddha. Buddhism just doesn't seem to hold the same control over its followers as let's say Islam; perhaps that's down to it being pacifistic by nature?

I'll take on board your comments re: my netiquette.

Edited October 13, 2008 by ClaytonSeymour

[njpski]

Buddhism, I believe, respects life and is anti-killing. This is what attracts me to Buddhism.

The Bible says "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord", so why, in (their) god's name, do christians pre-empt their god's duty and disregard the commandment that says thou shalt not kill!

To say those wrongly convicted murderers were criminals anyway - i hope you are never falsely accused of anything with trumped up evidence against you. Hurricane Carter was falsely accused of murder, he may have had a record but that is no justification for killing him. Fortunately, he was not executed.

[camerata]

Buddhism just doesn't seem to hold the same control over its followers as let's say Islam; perhaps that's down to it being pacifistic by nature?

I think it has more to do with Buddhism being about individual liberation, as opposed to obeying God's commands (as interpreted by prophets and priests) and converting others to the True Religion. When everyone has to work out his own liberation, what other people do is less important - that's their business, their karma.

[camerata]

The Bible says "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord", so why, in (their) god's name, do christians pre-empt their god's duty and disregard the commandment that says thou shalt not kill!

In one of his talks, Ajahn Brahm points out that if you believe in God, Allah, Yahweh or karma, why would you want revenge? You know the bad guys are going to get their just desserts in the end. It makes you wonder how many people really believe in the tenets of their own religion.

[dave_boo]

Buddhism, I believe, respects life and is anti-killing. This is what attracts me to Buddhism.

The Bible says "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord", so why, in (their) god's name, do christians pre-empt their god's duty and disregard the commandment that says thou shalt not kill!

To say those wrongly convicted murderers were criminals anyway - i hope you are never falsely accused of anything with trumped up evidence against you. Hurricane Carter was falsely accused of murder, he may have had a record but that is no justification for killing him. Fortunately, he was not executed.

Actually that's a common mistake. The Hebrew word was "murder" (tsakh - חצר) not "kill" (harag - גרה). And for those who like to quote from an English Bible and say that "Well Jesus said in Matthew 5:21, 'Thou shall not kill'", read the Greek which uses the word for murder (phoneuw - φουευο) not kill (apokteino - άπεκτενώ). Huge difference. There's a clear difference in there about what's acceptable and what's not.