Should Practising Buddhists Be Judges Or Jurors?

[camerata]

Here's a question brought up by ChiangMaiFun: Should a (serious) Buddhist be involved in judging criminals?

I haven't thought about it much but it seems to me that a judge or juror accepts from the get-go that his objective is to maintain a just and harmonious society and that he is bound to follow the rules set down for this. If the death penalty exists, I personally wouldn't get involved. Without a death penalty it seems one is simply following the rules of evidence already laid down to establish guilt of a crime rather than making a personal judgment as to whether the defendant is "good" or "bad." I still wouldn't want to be involved, though, because it would result in a considerable amount of mental torment that wouldn't be conducive to mental cultivation.

[Samuian]

Depends on under which perspective it is to be viewed!

As a Judge in a criminal court, or as a simple bystander of ordinary daily affairs!

OR under buddhist priciples...

last: imho, one must follow the rules and just observe!

[londonthai]

over 90% of crime is against property and law is made by the owning class to protect it's property against dispossessed, hence it's a tool of class oppression

[473geo]

over 90% of crime is against property and law is made by the owning class to protect it's property against dispossessed, hence it's a tool of class oppression

Does law not also serve to protect the weak from the strong?

[londonthai]

show an example

[473geo]

show an example

The law serves as a deterrent for - drink drivers, robbery with violence, GBH, Mugging.....cruelty against children/animals.....rackmanism........

[rockyysdt]

last: imho, one must follow the rules and just observe!

Politically influenced law may not align with morality.

If the rules were framed politically then a judge may be presiding over wrongful law.

Consider being a judge under Robert Mugabes government.

The above is an extreme example but most societies have some poorly framed laws.

Edited December 31, 2009 by rockyysdt

[473geo]

last: imho, one must follow the rules and just observe!

Politically influenced law may not align with morality.

If the rules were framed politically then a judge may be presiding over wrongful law.

Consider being a judge under Robert Mugabes government.

The above is an extreme example but most societies have some poorly framed laws.

Then it is up to the people to abide by or change the laws...if they are deemed unsuitable....the judge can only show discretion where allowed or applicable......

[ScubaBuddha]

I believe the clarity of thought and mindfulness a true Buddhist would practice makes them uniquely qualified to be judges. As for capitol punishment, it is only the higher criminal courts in jurisdictions which allow it where a conflict would arise. Only 99.9% of judges will ever handle a capitol punishment case, and in many jurisdictions that is handled by a jury anyway, and the judge is more of a referee and not the one determining sentences.

Edited December 31, 2009 by ScubaBuddha

[londonthai]

The law serves as a deterrent for - drink drivers, robbery with violence, GBH, Mugging.....cruelty against children/animals.....rackmanism........

capital punishement in not a deterrent (as shown by the example of the usa), so penalty points on the driving license, temporary suspention of license or ban from driving even less so. I have known many drivers who had no right to drive and were doing so.

I know better ways of dealing with those problems - education as well as compassion to other beings.

still robbery, mugging, rackmanism relate to property and can be eradicated by the abolishement of class devision, hence property, followed by the whole law and the jurysdical system.

as to law against cruelty, it's a pretty new development and exist only in some more developped economically countries.

Still tens of millions kids make nikea shoes and designer clothing, mine dangerous mines, slave in agriculture to cultivate coffee beans or worse 30k kids below age of 6 die every single day from hunger, malnutrition and basic medical care, as well as a further 70k adults. So there are cruelty laws for the reasonable rich kids and adults, but not for the poor ones.

Still 2 mln a year dogs are beaten to death and eaten in korea, despite the law.

as to buddhists "uniquely qualified to be judges" - why not to extend this to policemen, as they are both part of the defenders of law. They would be "good cops", same as "good buddhist judges".

and what about misscarages of justice - and not because of the corrupted judges, cops, parliamentarians, politicians - but the best lawers for the rich and not as good (or not at all) for the poor. In thailand it's estimated 10% doing time for somebody elses crime.

and what about "being framed" by some person with money for their own benefit or by cops and politicians, who need to show public some success in fighting crime?

[Brucenkhamen]

As a judge it's your job to administer the laws of the land, being a judge isn't listed as an occupation that is considered wrong livelihood.

If you were a judge and found it distasteful of course you could leave, but then should police officers do the same? Prison Officers?

A judges job is to protect society from those who would seek to do us harm, I would say that's a vocation that generates good kamma.

[473geo]

The law serves as a deterrent for - drink drivers, robbery with violence, GBH, Mugging.....cruelty against children/animals.....rackmanism........

capital punishement in not a deterrent (as shown by the example of the usa), so penalty points on the driving license, temporary suspention of license or ban from driving even less so. I have known many drivers who had no right to drive and were doing so.

I know better ways of dealing with those problems - education as well as compassion to other beings.

still robbery, mugging, rackmanism relate to property and can be eradicated by the abolishement of class devision, hence property, followed by the whole law and the jurysdical system.

as to law against cruelty, it's a pretty new development and exist only in some more developped economically countries.

Still tens of millions kids make nikea shoes and designer clothing, mine dangerous mines, slave in agriculture to cultivate coffee beans or worse 30k kids below age of 6 die every single day from hunger, malnutrition and basic medical care, as well as a further 70k adults. So there are cruelty laws for the reasonable rich kids and adults, but not for the poor ones.

Still 2 mln a year dogs are beaten to death and eaten in korea, despite the law.

as to buddhists "uniquely qualified to be judges" - why not to extend this to policemen, as they are both part of the defenders of law. They would be "good cops", same as "good buddhist judges".

and what about misscarages of justice - and not because of the corrupted judges, cops, parliamentarians, politicians - but the best lawers for the rich and not as good (or not at all) for the poor. In thailand it's estimated 10% doing time for somebody elses crime.

and what about "being framed" by some person with money for their own benefit or by cops and politicians, who need to show public some success in fighting crime?

I wondered if you required examples to give you a subject and a stage......so no surprise there then...

Well why don't you just go out and eradicate a few of these people you appear to despise so much........have you given up hope of changing the legal system for today........or is some sort of deterrent preventing you.... ....or perhaps you know fine well that anybody can list the crimes of the errant minority and ignore the fact that laws are in practice observed by the majority for the majority.

[rockyysdt]

Then it is up to the people to abide by or change the laws...if they are deemed unsuitable....the judge can only show discretion where allowed or applicable......

But as a Buddhist, if l was a judge, l'd be facing a dilemma.

[airplane]

As Ajahn Jumnien always says, "just do your duty". If it is your duty to judge, then judge.

[rockyysdt]

A judges job is to protect society from those who would seek to do us harm, I would say that's a vocation that generates good kamma.

This presumes the laws of the land are just.

[mohinga]

As an historical aside, one of the more influential figures in the development of Buddhism in the West - Christmas Humphries - was both a barrister and magistrate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Humphreys

[phetaroi]

Interesting thread.

When I first read the OP, for me it was a no-brainer. But the more I read and the more I thought, I realized thinking it was a no-brainer really meant that I was not using my brain.

To use a cliche, no man is an island. In some ways one might see a faithful Buddhist as being an island into himself (or herself), just attempting to maintain himself on the path to enlightenment.

Unfortunately, there's a big world out there, and our ability to even exist and operate as Buddhists is dependent on interaction with that world...as many Buddhists in parts of China have discovered. So, in my view, there is a moral imperative that we exist not only on the path, but also within a society. And that means being a part of that society and fulfilling certain societal responsibilities.

Another post mentioned being a part of society that is corrupt (i.e., Mugabe's government). Very good point. The only personal example I can give to illustrate my belief in this regard is in terms of how I have reacted to racism in America. I was having a conversation one day about some racially tinged issue that had arisen back in the States, and my associate said, "Well, what have you done to fight racism?" It was a fair question because talk is cheap. "Well, not as much as I should have, but I am a long-time contributing member of two major national civil rights organizations, I have written to my Congressmen about civil rights issues, I have sat down and had a conversation with a major civil rights leader, and at work I have assured that minority candidates are interviewed and hired (if qualified), thus resulting in a doubling of minority hirings since I became principal (of a middle school)."

Now, don't think I'm patting myself on the back. Those things were mostly pretty easy. But, I feel I made a difference, and certainly made more of a difference than those who do nothing to fight injustice. Or those who just talk about it.

Even then, however, there are many other pressing issues about which I did nothing at all.

It's the old quote: "If you do not stand up for something, then you stand for nothing, and that is a pretty empty place to stand."

For me, Buddhism is about morality. Personal morality. And that must involve societal morality.

[Samuian]

last: imho, one must follow the rules and just observe!

Politically influenced law may not align with morality.

If the rules were framed politically then a judge may be presiding over wrongful law.

Consider being a judge under Robert Mugabes government.

The above is an extreme example but most societies have some poorly framed laws.

"Robert Mugabe" he is some good example how people should not be ....

but then go to the extreme and there will be no right nor wrong on the other end....

How about Ghandi, Mother Theresa, Francis of Assisi and the lot to the contrary?

from: #3

"over 90% of crime is against property and law is made by the owning class to protect it's property against dispossessed, hence it's a tool of class oppression"....

...is a rather outdated political statement...cold war is over!

is taking the idea/core of this thread into the oblivious, but then it is nothing unusual in a forum!

It's like "Happy New year"!

One day is like the other, the only difference there is, is made by ..... whom?

A rather random calendar!

Welcome to the show ladies & gentlemen, welcome to the greatest show on earth!

Have a nice day everyone!

Edited January 1, 2010 by Samuian

[Svenn]

I still wouldn't want to be involved, though, because it would result in a considerable amount of mental torment that wouldn't be conducive to mental cultivation.

I know what you mean, but I think some Buddhists go too far with the notion that their practice is some sort of delicate mental balancing act that shouldn't be disturbed by practical or lowly human emotions or daily affairs like judging or juroring. The mental processes of judging, calculating, irritation, or approval are all natural, spontaneously occurring sentiments in the human mind, ...any samadhi that is destroyed or diminished by them, e.g. by mental torment as you say, is no real samadhi at all. And that I think is a key point- many people confuse the samadhi, i.e. the state of extremely concentrated meditation, as the sambodhi... when in reality bodhi is entirely active and alive in the present moment. Unless you believe the Buddha was some magical figure, then he too experienced irritation, sadness, and frustration just as much as all of us, his mind just wasn't attached or defined by them. True, the mental activity necessary for judging would make it hard to do a concentrative samadhi, e.g. on breathing, but a true vipassana should be unaffected by it.

and the judge is more of a referee and not the one determining sentences.

Yes that's true, in the modern legal system, especially in the U.S., there is very little actual judging or moral decision-making- there are sentencing-guidelines with very strict rules, rules of evidence that mostly predetermine what the trial will look like, and even very strict rules for what the jury can even consider. It's more like an impartial scientific process to determine the likelihood of guilt rather than any sort of moral or ethical exercise at all. Even Gautama would have had to engage is such 'lowly' affairs as this, ...determining what town to visit next, how to structure his talk, plan his day, etc... again they're all normal human activities that involve fretting and juggling. It's not as if an arahat has his eyes glazed over and is always staring off into the distance with a gentle smile or something.... that is a romantic peasant's conception of them!

[rockyysdt]

Using a gavel has always appealed to me.

Non the less, l'd hate to preside over unjust law, especially if it conflicted with Dhamma.

[Brucenkhamen]

A judges job is to protect society from those who would seek to do us harm, I would say that's a vocation that generates good kamma.

This presumes the laws of the land are just.

Yes.

So if you lived in a country where the laws weren't designed to protect innocent people from harm, rather a corrupt dictator and his cronies from justice, then yes it's not a vocation I'd want to be involved in.

[chanwit]

Depends on under which perspective it is to be viewed!

As a Judge in a criminal court, or as a simple bystander of ordinary daily affairs!

OR under buddhist priciples...

last: imho, one must follow the rules and just observe!

I follow Buddhist principles now after a long life as a Christian. ( Married to a Thai Buddhist for a very long time)

Once upon a time I was summoned to jury duty in Texas.

It turned out to be a murder criminal trial with possible death sentence. Being Buddhist was not one in the list of exemptions for me not to be a juror.

I listed my religion as Buddhist on the lawyers elimination sheet. You probably know how that works.

The defense and prosecution trade prospective jurors until they have enough active and backup jurors and the rest pick up their $little check and go home.

The defense won me as a juror and the accused didn't get the death sentence.