Buddhism And The Death Penalty

[rockyysdt]

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

Hi CS.

A life sentence in a U.S. prison is a fate worse than death. Not much better in Thai prisions either.

The only additional function of the death sentence is revenge and cost.

As we are civilised, revenge is out of the question.

Therefore a true life sentence will take care of the reoffending issue, and modeling the prison on a cost neutral enterprise looks after cost.

Do we now have an agreement on the abolition of the death sentence, particularly in a Buddhist country?

[rockyysdt]

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.

This is of great interest to me and crucially fundamental to our lives as Buddhists.

In any court of law, the masterminds of murder are just as guilty if not more so, even though someone else pulls the trigger.

Do you have specific passages in the Pali Canon or any evidence supporting Buddhas thoughts that indirect involvement in killing is OK and non karma forming?

[ClaytonSeymour]

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

I'd look at the circumstances surrounding the crime & only then would I decide to grieve them i.e. if my brother was a serial killer I most certainly would not grieve him & would feel no shame or guilt in the process.

[whatsoever]

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

I'd look at the circumstances surrounding the crime & only then would I decide to grieve them i.e. if my brother was a serial killer I most certainly would not grieve him & would feel no shame or guilt in the process.

So you would look at the circumstances before deciding to grieve or not! But didn't you say you would feel nothing for anyone grieving for a murderer!

You dont realy have an opinion do you Mr semen

[ClaytonSeymour]

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

Hi CS.

A life sentence in a U.S. prison is a fate worse than death. Not much better in Thai prisions either.

The only additional function of the death sentence is revenge and cost.

As we are civilised, revenge is out of the question.

Therefore a true life sentence will take care of the reoffending issue, and modeling the prison on a cost neutral enterprise looks after cost.

Do we now have an agreement on the abolition of the death sentence, particularly in a Buddhist country?

I'll never accept that a life sentence is worse than death; whilst ever there is life there's hope.

Again, I can't agree on the matter of revenge; the victims of crime are entitled to it. Right, or, wrong, my character trait as always lended itself to a desire for revenge, often for trivial matters, as such, I most certainly would seek revenge against anyone who harmed those dear to me. Surely, revenge is a natural trait in all of us; Buddhists are merely suppressing it.

As for the abolition of the death penalty in Thailand, personally, I'd be against it, I actually applaud all governments who have the courage to retain it. Why don't they have a national referendum on the subject? I suspect the government thinks they know better, as per every UK government, because in their case, they know they'd lose and capital punishment would be restored.

[ClaytonSeymour]

So you would look at the circumstances before deciding to grieve or not! But didn't you say you would feel nothing for anyone grieving for a murderer!

You dont realy have an opinion do you Mr semen

Before you get so clever and start flaming which is against forum rules by the way. Stop & consider what I said, 'I would look at the circumstances.' Now let's suppose that my niece was raped here in the UK - the criminal wouldn't be punished, so my brother takes the matter into his own hands & kills the rapist - different ball game - of course I'd grieve my brother & I'd praise his actions. Totally different to going out and killing in cold blood, though I don't suppose you'd understand that.

By the way, just for you, without going into detail, I'll tell you a brief story. A few years ago I had a disagreement with my father, we didn't speak for a couple of years at the end of which time, he unfortunately passed away, I guess you'll be pleased to know that I didn't attend his funeral.

[ClaytonSeymour]

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.

That's a good point, as a non believer, I know the bad guys are not going to get their just desserts unless we take revenge in this life.

[whatsoever]

So you would look at the circumstances before deciding to grieve or not! But didn't you say you would feel nothing for anyone grieving for a murderer!

You dont realy have an opinion do you Mr semen

Before you get so clever and start flaming which is against forum rules by the way. Stop & consider what I said, 'I would look at the circumstances.' Now let's suppose that my niece was raped here in the UK - the criminal wouldn't be punished, so my brother takes the matter into his own hands & kills the rapist - different ball game - of course I'd grieve my brother & I'd praise his actions. Totally different to going out and killing in cold blood, though I don't suppose you'd understand that.

By the way, just for you, without going into detail, I'll tell you a brief story. A few years ago I had a disagreement with my father, we didn't speak for a couple of years at the end of which time, he unfortunately passed away, I guess you'll be pleased to know that I didn't attend his funeral.

Oh, I see so the death penalty would not be for murders where there were mitigating circumstances. So like killing a rapist would incurr a lessor sentence. So if we kill criminals (or just rapists) then thats ok moraly!

Oh, i cant realy comprehend the thing about your father. Why you didnt attend his funeral? or why i would be pleased?

Strangely enough i wasn't speaking to my father when he passed on - but I attended his funeral. My brother, however did not attend, rationalising this by saying 'what did he ever do for me'! My thoughts were/are why didnt i do more for him

[ClaytonSeymour]

Oh, I see so the death penalty would not be for murders where there were mitigating circumstances. So like killing a rapist would incurr a lessor sentence. So if we kill criminals (or just rapists) then thats ok moraly!

Oh, i cant realy comprehend the thing about your father. Why you didnt attend his funeral? or why i would be pleased?

Strangely enough i wasn't speaking to my father when he passed on - but I attended his funeral. My brother, however did not attend, rationalising this by saying 'what did he ever do for me'! My thoughts were/are why didnt i do more for him

It's about the bigger picture, whether you view it as right, or wrong, we all seem to agree that the death penalty is partially about revenge. Ideally (for those of us who think revenge is acceptable), the system should deliver this, but if the system doesn't, in certain circumstances I can empathize with those who seek it out themselves.

I didn't attend because of our disagreement; I refused to forget the past. Unsympathetic, spiteful, or whatever you want to call it, but, based on the comments here, a Buddhist would (should?) behave differently.

[camerata]

Do you have specific passages in the Pali Canon or any evidence supporting Buddhas thoughts that indirect involvement in killing is OK and non karma forming?

The fact that the Buddha rejected the idea of mandatory vegetarianism when Devadatta proposed it shows that he didn't equate eating animals with killing them oneself. As I understand it, this means that the kammic result from this kind of indirect involvement in killing is much smaller than direct killing. Another factor is intent. When we eat meat, we don't have the intention to kill the animal, which is already dead anyway. This is clearly different from, say, someone masterminding an assassination but not actually pulling the trigger, when the intent to murder is there before the act. It's also different from going into a restaurant and selecting a live animal to be cooked for your dinner.

[camerata]

I didn't attend because of our disagreement; I refused to forget the past. Unsympathetic, spiteful, or whatever you want to call it, but, based on the comments here, a Buddhist would (should?) behave differently.

Yes. The whole point of Buddhism is to cultivate the mind and transcend its normal selfish habits. No one ever said it was easy, though.

[rockyysdt]

I'll never accept that a life sentence is worse than death; whilst ever there is life there's hope.

When dead there is no suffering. In fact it's a release from suffering for the owner of the expired body, ego, mind, thoughts and feelings.

Despite having hope, I can assure you that life in a U.S. prison is worse than death. Ask those who must endure the daily suffering.

Again, I can't agree on the matter of revenge; the victims of crime are entitled to it. Right, or, wrong, my character trait as always lended itself to a desire for revenge, often for trivial matters, as such, I most certainly would seek revenge against anyone who harmed those dear to me. Surely, revenge is a natural trait in all of us; Buddhists are merely suppressing it.

Revenge is an affliction which can harden ones heart and plunge its owner into life long hatred.

Jesus taught forgiveness. It's said that forgiveness is liberating. That's not to say the perpetrator should be left unpunished, but carrying feelings of hatred and revenge can be all consuming.

At the end of the day, as they say in Thailand, what you believe about the death penalty is "up to you".

Edited October 14, 2008 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

Do you have specific passages in the Pali Canon or any evidence supporting Buddhas thoughts that indirect involvement in killing is OK and non karma forming?

The fact that the Buddha rejected the idea of mandatory vegetarianism when Devadatta proposed it shows that he didn't equate eating animals with killing them oneself. As I understand it, this means that the kammic result from this kind of indirect involvement in killing is much smaller than direct killing. Another factor is intent. When we eat meat, we don't have the intention to kill the animal, which is already dead anyway. This is clearly different from, say, someone masterminding an assassination but not actually pulling the trigger, when the intent to murder is there before the act. It's also different from going into a restaurant and selecting a live animal to be cooked for your dinner.

Isn't killing a lower order life form such as a cow, mosquito, or ant perhaps a little different from being involved in the killing of a human?

As the topic is on the death penalty, is there anything in the Pali Canon or Buddhas thoughts which support the indirect involvement of taking a human life without affecting ones karma?

I suspect we are all involved to varying degrees in the killing of humans, that this involvement affects our karma and our lack of awareness doesn't protect us.

[thaipete]

yes I read that when it came out it was so deep

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.

[dave_boo]

When dead there is no suffering. In fact it's a release from suffering for the owner of the expired body, ego, mind, thoughts and feelings.

Despite having hope, I can assure you that life in a U.S. prison is worse than death. Ask those who must endure the daily suffering.

And how can they compare it to the alternative? Without experiencing both, there is no way to claim that one is better than the other.

I also believe that humans have a really strong built in survival instinct. That's the reason we've lasted as long as we have, our common stupidity be damned!

[rockyysdt]

And how can they compare it to the alternative? Without experiencing both, there is no way to claim that one is better than the other.

Your point is correct. We'll only know for sure with direct experience, but its been stated on this forum that Buddhist teaching leads us to conclude that the body, ego, mind, thoughts & feelings expire on death and rebirth only involves karma, not the individual accumulating it.

If you accept Buddhist teaching, then, apart from the initial trauma, death will end suffering as this can only be experienced whilst you are alive.

[camerata]

Isn't killing a lower order life form such as a cow, mosquito, or ant perhaps a little different from being involved in the killing of a human?

That seems to be the general opinion. It's specifically stated in one of Ven Henepola Gunaratana's books, as I recall.

As the topic is on the death penalty, is there anything in the Pali Canon or Buddhas thoughts which support the indirect involvement of taking a human life without affecting ones karma?

Not that I know of.

I suspect we are all involved to varying degrees in the killing of humans, that this involvement affects our karma and our lack of awareness doesn't protect us.

Intention is the key. If we aren't aware of the killing in any sense at all, there can't be any intent. But I reckon I would be generating bad kamma if, say, I voted for a political party that had vowed to introduce the death penalty (and succeeded). I may not be aware of the specific incidences of killing, but I had the intent that some people should die.

A more interesting situation is when we risk the death of others. If I let my 10-year-old son (if I had one) ride my motorbike on a public road and he got killed in a crash, I obviously didn't have the intent to kill him but it was what we would call criminal negligence. Clearly this is irresponsible and bad, but I don't know if the Buddha's teachings cover it. What if I risk my own life recklessly?

It seems to me that the general principle of harmlessness applies in this situation. We should try not to put anyone in harm's way.

[rockyysdt]

Intention is the key. If we aren't aware of the killing in any sense at all, there can't be any intent.

I agree with the points you make, but I think negative karma can also be accumulated even without intent.

Leading an improper lifestyle with fixation on the senses can cause suffering to others and therefore negative karma even though there appears to be no intent.

I suspect lack of awareness and lack of self awareness can be karmically negative.

[AmeriThai]

A more interesting situation is when we risk the death of others. If I let my 10-year-old son (if I had one) ride my motorbike on a public road and he got killed in a crash, I obviously didn't have the intent to kill him but it was what we would call criminal negligence. Clearly this is irresponsible and bad, but I don't know if the Buddha's teachings cover it. What if I risk my own life recklessly?

It seems to me that the general principle of harmlessness applies in this situation. We should try not to put anyone in harm's way.

I think your last sentence states sums it up. If you are aware of the risks, would it not be wrong to say, "Son, if you ride the motorbike of a public road, you could be killed by some kind of accident. But go ahead ride the motorbike anyway"? It's not a question of whether it could be legally called "criminal negligence". It's a question of whether you know what the potential consequences are that such a risk could subject your son to. Same could be said about subjecting your own life to reckless risk. If you know it's reckless and are aware of the risk, then you alone are responsible for making the decision of subjecting yourself to that risk in the first place. Admittedly, there are exceptions.

I agree we should not wrongfully put ourselves or others in harm's way. The problem is that life is full of countless hazardous risks, some preventable, some are not. Sometimes we have to weigh the values (often without even thinking about it) of taking certain kinds of risks for the sake of convenience or even survival. Seems to me it's a matter of how we see the value to the degree of a risk as to whether it's ultimately worth doing or not. If there's a safer alternative, is that not a better choice? Unfortunately it's not always that simple.

[ourmaninbangers]

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.

if you are for the death penalty you are for innocent people dying because statisticly without doubt, even with DNA, that is what will happen

how many poor innocent blacks went to their horrific deaths in the USA ?

the death penalty is wrong, cruel , and inhumane

it makes the person doing it just as bad, if not worse than the so called criminal.

The USA is so far behind in some things it is beyond belief, a country which has so many christians( in other words people that beleive in talking snakes) has so much power. Thats the last place we should look at for any sort of guidance on this matter.

Buddistism is not a religion and thailand is so confused that we cannot really use it as a debate platform.

Buddists are also encourgage to have open minds, thus be able to question certain things... yet some things here are not allowed.. I wonder what?

[jts-khorat]

Do you have specific passages in the Pali Canon or any evidence supporting Buddhas thoughts that indirect involvement in killing is OK and non karma forming?

The fact that the Buddha rejected the idea of mandatory vegetarianism when Devadatta proposed it shows that he didn't equate eating animals with killing them oneself. As I understand it, this means that the kammic result from this kind of indirect involvement in killing is much smaller than direct killing. Another factor is intent. When we eat meat, we don't have the intention to kill the animal, which is already dead anyway. This is clearly different from, say, someone masterminding an assassination but not actually pulling the trigger, when the intent to murder is there before the act. It's also different from going into a restaurant and selecting a live animal to be cooked for your dinner.

As far as I understanding the monastic rules, it is acceptable even for a monk to take food that contains meat, as far as he does not have good reason to assume that the animal was killed specifically for his consumption.

So not only the intention of the one accepting/eating the meat is of importance, also the (perceived) intention of the one doing the killing.

Bringing this back to the issue of the death penalty, the intention of the executed person (eg the amount of bad kamma he has accumulated with his acts for himself) should have an influence on the bad kamma one might accumulate for oneself by executing him or accepting his execution as a necessary legal procedure [being an executioner falls surely in the category of unskillful jobs that are generally inadvisable for Buddhists].

However, the own intent should be not the only, but the much more important factor. Accepting that an execution was necessary should carry a much lesser load of bad kamma than gleefully or spitefully cheering it on.

As the path to enlightenment is about reducing accumulation of one's own bad kamma, I would assume that even the minor bad kamma gained by accepting the death penalty of even a very bad person should be seen as a distraction and as such avoided, eg the death penalty should be in disagreement with the Buddha's teachings.

[jts-khorat]

the death penalty is wrong, cruel , and inhumane.

it makes the person doing it just as bad, if not worse than the so called criminal.

Even though the death penalty is not in line with the Buddha's basic teachings (see my previous post) I would like to counter your last argument.

Intention is the important factor; as such, the executioner intentionally and willfully murders another human being. As was pointed out in a previous post, executing somebody still counts as planned murder and being an executioner is definitely an un-Buddhist profession that should be avoided.

However his intention is of doing this within a legal framework and with as painless a procedure as possible. Neither glee nor revenge should be any part of this process, as they are unskillful emotions anyway.

As the executed has accumulated much bad kamma in his acts, it should be "less bad" to execute him than the deeds he was accused of (always assuming he was guilty); the difference should be minor and is of importance only to the executioner anyway, as he will have to carry this burden alone.

In a previous post somebody mentioned that Thai executioners did their work through a screen, as such avoiding intent of killing. Similar happened to me on my last visit to Isaan, I was asked to hold the rope as a cow was killed, so the person who should normally have done so avoided the bad kamma (and was eating happily after).

In both cases I think it is too obvious what is intended as that bad kamma can be avoided or even reduced and it is just an easy way out for those who want to do unskillful acts without accepting responsibility for them.

[rockyysdt]

As the executed has accumulated much bad kamma in his acts, it should be "less bad" to execute him than the deeds he was accused of (always assuming he was guilty); the difference should be minor and is of importance only to the executioner anyway, as he will have to carry this burden alone.

Isn't the level of "bad" you attribute to the executioner (less bad?) very subjective?

It comes back to whether the death penalty is acceptable at anytime whether it be legally sanctioned or not.

Legal death penalty is a reflection of the government which sanctions it and its people.

If the death penalty is abbhorant, barbaric and wrong, then perhaps all those who allowed such a government to come to power are just as wrong even though they do'nt pull the trigger.

I also suspect that bad khamma can be accumulated by those who lack self awareness to be able to discern how bad their stance or actions might be.

In a previous post somebody mentioned that Thai executioners did their work through a screen, as such avoiding intent of killing. Similar happened to me on my last visit to Isaan, I was asked to hold the rope as a cow was killed, so the person who should normally have done so avoided the bad kamma (and was eating happily after)

In both cases I think it is too obvious what is intended as that bad kamma can be avoided or even reduced and it is just an easy way out for those who want to do unskillful acts without accepting responsibility for them.

I agree with you.

I suspect this custom gives people an illusion that they have no intent.

The reality may be much greater bad khamma than one may imagine.

[jts-khorat]

Isn't the level of "bad" you attribute to the executioner (less bad?) very subjective?

It comes back to whether the death penalty is acceptable at anytime whether it be legally sanctioned or not.

Legal death penalty is a reflection of the government which sanctions it and its people.

If the death penalty is abbhorant, barbaric and wrong, then perhaps all those who allowed such a government to come to power are just as wrong even though they do'nt pull the trigger.

I also suspect that bad khamma can be accumulated by those who lack self awareness to be able to discern how bad their stance or actions might be.

I think it is indeed very subjective, and the lessening of bad kamma might be very small. This is why I mentioned that it would matter to the executioner only, as he has personal responsibility for his kamma alone and will also have to live with its consequences alone.

What I wanted to achieve is an opinion if indeed the amount of kamma is not only directed by ones own intention, but also by the (assumed) intention of others affected by your actions. I have found very little on this in my readings so far and indeed, as the Buddha's teachings are about self-responsibility, I might be totally wrong in this point.

If anybody could point me in the right direction?