the death penalty

[Kaelus]

I can't help but feel sorrowful when I think of death penalty. Personally, I hate it. I don't think society has the right to take a life, it sounds really cheap and superficial to me. Nothing can be that easy. It depends very much on the situatuon, even if I consider killing with conscience to be a despicable and degraded action.

It only sounds like "murder" if the killer has no respect for life, or takes a life just for the heck of it. I'm revolted when I see people taking pleasure in killing, it's disgusting. But still, I don't feel that it's right to kill that person too... at least, we're not the ones who should be doing this. The victim's relatives and friends should decide what to do with the murderer, what does society know? People from outside (judges, lawyers, the media) will never know what the people involved in the crime feel. It doesn't seem right for total strangers to come and "do justice" in your name. (I know, I know. This kind of thing concerns society too, because a serial killer could harm its so-called perfect harmony. But society was never one of my major concerns, really.)

In the other hand, there are some people who are guilty of killing others, but you can't really blame them. And even if you can... it doesn't mean that you can't forgive them. Those people also have their rights and beliefs. They're still human, and they have their own reasons, which the society will probably never understand. The only situation when it's "right" to kill somebody, is when you're avenging loved ones. And even those cases have exceptions and limitations.

Given those confusing circumstances, I'd say that death penalty shouldn't exist. There are so many different situations, it's impossible to do the right thing all the time. Criminals should have their fates decided by their victim's families, no matter how crude it may sound. It's just that it sounds... a little more human than making death a nearly commercial thing.

And for the karma thing, not everybody believes that. And it doesn't sound right for people to be killed in the name of something which they don't think it's true. I believe in it partially, but I don't know if people should be killed as a result of their own actions. So, even if they regret their actions in life, are forgiven and work until the day they die to make up for it, they'll get killed in the next life anyway? Shouldn't they be free to start again, and nobody has to get hurt anymore?

I know I'm being too idealistic, but I can't accept any other reality as being absolutely correct or just. Justice shouldn't be manifested this way... it can't even be called "justice".

[The Wizard Who Did It]

Originally Posted by Lockeownzj00

Excuse me if I call the argument a cop-out.

I will excuse you. I will also state that that is the prerequesite that you must have for that argument that I used to work. I'm sure Dasanudas has something better, I was just trying to give an explanation as I saw it.

A Minarchist might disagree. The government should serve the purpose of, if anything, regulating on a large scale. It is not their job to make us pray nor is it really their right, in my opinion, to use that itchy trigger finger (in regards to execution and such).

We vary on degrees. I don't think the government should be all 1984, but I do believe that the government is there to be the stronger force to help you out. If someone tramples on your rights, you want somebody strong behind you to help you out. Sometimes people can't get the civilians around them to help. The government is meant to be the stronger force there.

About the pray thing, only if that is the moral code agreed upon by the poeple. For Americans, it isn't. As for the gun, who else is supposed to wield it? My little add-on-edit-thing stated that the choice of whether the government gets to use the gun should be up to the indevidual, or at least a mass consensus of the people. I do think that the government should always have the gun ready, though. So... I guess I might be a minarchist.

[Lockeownzj00]

If someone tramples on your rights

If the government is the one trampling on your rights, who do you turn to?

I think this is kind of a misconception. Individuals don't tend to 'trample on your rights--' often, such disputes can be solved sans legal/gubernatorial involvement. If an organization or representative one is, again, the government is not one you tend to seek for compensation, but another organization.

[Dasanudas]

Well, uhm...I didn't really expect such a respone to my one post, and I apologize if it starts to sidetrack the thread. Let me see what I can do to respond.

Originally Posted by Kikuichimonji

Dasanudas: The purpose of government should not be to enforce moral law, since society cannot agree on what really is moral, or even if anything is moral. I personally 'know,' at least as much as you do about your beliefs, that reincarnation makes no sense to me. Society cannot function if we force our own personal beliefs on everyone else.

First, I agree that a government cannot litigate morality - it never works. Just look at any example: Prohibition, the war on drugs, the drive for abstinence, etc. (and these are just from our country). But we disagree on what a government is supposed to do. According to the Vedas (and if this bothers people by ringing of dogma, I apologize, simply subtitute "in my opinion" then), a government's duty is to administer to the populous in such a way that the society as a whole is elevated to ever greater spiritual platforms. Tis does not mean that they must necessarily promote one tradition over another, but they should see that not only are people being educated in facts and "book knowledge," but also in character.

Also, by stating that society cannot function if we force our own personal beliefs onto others, how can you reconcile that while it may be your belief that a secular govt. is best, mine might be a spiritual govt., or an Islamic govt.? This, I suppose, is one reason why there are different societies on this Earth. I live in a society separate from the US govt. (while in a govt., we abide by it's rules, but we are not part of it), so this - for me - is moot. In response to what some say, I didn't like it, so I left.

As for reincarnation, I do not know what you "know," or why you put that in quotes. I must guess that it means that while you have studied the subject, it is not something you subscribe to. The differing understandings of even something as simple as reincarnation can be overwhelming, so I shall narrow my statement down to I believe in reincarnation as described in the Bhagavad-Gita. As for it not making sense, that is irrelevant. Quantum mechanics may not make much sense to people, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. For me, it is a natural law. The workings of karma are very complex, and I would quickly state that I don't understand it very well (and it's not my intention to, but that's going elsewhere). For instance, the priest who performs a marriage is karmicly bound to the outcome of the marriage. It goes on and on, but just because a person denies it's workings doesn't mean it stops working.

Originally Posted by Kikuichimonji

If you believe that the person will be murdered in their next life, let nature run its course. Is it evil for the person to be murdered in their next life? If not, why should it be stopped?

Also, another problem I have with your argument is that it seems like you're saying "Shit! He's gonna get killed for doing this! We better kill him first, before anyone else does!"

I was trying to avoid the more sectarian aspects of this, but it seems they are needed for clarification. The execution of a murderer is considered merciful not simply because it balances out that aspect of karma, but it let's the perpetrator skip going to Hell for the crime. The Vedas have rather vivid descriptions of Hells - different ones for different crimes and the wahatnot - and while going there is not permanent, it lasts for quite a while and is not pleasant at all (you know, the whole Hell definition). By removing that debt, one is able to avoid the Hellish process entirely (and there's the aspect of who is killed increases the punishment - killing a saintly person entitles dying once for each hair on that person's body). Also, it is true that the person will at one point be paid in kind, but how they are killed can be just as bad. Is it not a crime for a person - even on death row - to be shot by a bystander? Why is it OK for the govt. to execute, but not a citizen of the govt.? It is very much the same for Vedic law. Yes the person will be killed for their action inevitably, but it is better for the system of govt. to meet out said punishment than to risk having someone else in their next life kill them and thus gain their own karma from it.

Originally Posted by Kikuichimonji

Punishing a murderer should only stem from two causes: dissuading future possible murderers from carrying it out...

[humor]Well, I certainly think capital punishment would dissuade others from murder. We could incorporate it into all other crimes. I've often thought that by making vehicular manslaughter legal, we would seriously cut down on jaywalking. [/humor]

Originally Posted by The Wizard Who dit It

The next life functions as a new begginning (I think, help me out here Dasanudas). In this new begginning, they may be good. However, because they were not killed before, karma has them killed now, in their new life. Their new begginning, where they are good, is stopped. This is not fair, as they should have their full new good life. It is a precaution to kill them now.

I would like to help out, but I fear crossing lines. I shall simply say that Vedic understanding is more like a new day - the actions of the past day are gone, but the consequences are still here. Each former day (life) shapes the present day (life) which we react to, and these reactions shape the next day (life).

Originally Posted by Lockeownzj00

Excuse me if I call the argument a cop-out.

I agree, which is why I tried to word my first post as "these are my axioms, thus this is my feeling" rather than a "this is how you people should see it too." Obviously in this democracy/reublic, most people don't see it this way, and thus it is not the way things are done.

Originally Posted by ZAKthegeek

Bit of a tangent, but if you believe that murderers will eventually be murdered themselves (in one life or another), then are you also not forced to believe that the amount of murder among humans is forced to continuously increase over time, or at best, remain constant?

Not really, first of all, karma is a one time shot, not cyclic. One death, a reaction death, then finished. It's not like a pendulum. Second, while karma is there, so is free will. Say a person has killed someone, and so in the next life the victim is now poised to kill them. The first victim always has the choice to simply not do it. This does not mean that the first murderer won't get a reaction of death, but it does mean that the karma for the victim will stop. This is kind of the point of my practice - removing ourselves from the reactions of karma altogether, but it is nigh impossible unless one has proper knowledge of how to do it, which to talk about I think would definately be off-topic and over the line here. In a sense though, yes - karmic law is convoluted and murky and generally not something you want to have any part of.

Also, I do not know for sure if you meant this, but why stop at simply humans? Animal slaughter is rising, and the death of any life provokes the reaction of your death. Heck, there's karmic reaction simply from pulling radishes ou of the ground - that IS life, and you ARE killing it.

Now, hopefully moving more on topic of just death penalty:

Originally Posted by Kaelus

It only sounds like "murder" if the killer has no respect for life, or takes a life just for the heck of it. I'm revolted when I see people taking pleasure in killing, it's disgusting. But still, I don't feel that it's right to kill that person too... at least, we're not the ones who should be doing this. The victim's relatives and friends should decide what to do with the murderer, what does society know? People from outside (judges, lawyers, the media) will never know what the people involved in the crime feel. It doesn't seem right for total strangers to come and "do justice" in your name.

Personally, I would much prefer the fairness of a system where an impartial judge is acting according to duty rather than people administering justice according to emotion.

Originally Posted by Kaelus

In the other hand, there are some people who are guilty of killing others, but you can't really blame them. And even if you can... it doesn't mean that you can't forgive them. Those people also have their rights and beliefs. They're still human, and they have their own reasons, which the society will probably never understand. The only situation when it's "right" to kill somebody, is when you're avenging loved ones. And even those cases have exceptions and limitations.

Actually, I would agree that it's never "right" to kill anything alive, even down to the microbes. Yet there are times when it's necessary, and more relevant to this thread, times when it's "dutiful."

[Lockeownzj00]

Quantum mechanics may not make much sense to people, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. For me, it is a natural law.

I suppose I can't resist eyeing that dangerous dangerous territory by saying that Quantum Mechanics is at least a working theory constantly being revised, discussed, debated, and tested.

For example, I know that I was the stud on a black bouncer's sleeve in my past life.

I agree, which is why I tried to word my first post as "these are my axioms, thus this is my feeling" rather than a "this is how you people should see it too." Obviously in this democracy/reublic, most people don't see it this way, and thus it is not the way things are done.

I don't believe this is actually defending yourself too much. All these are established concepts in my mind and I still stand by my statement. I believe that was kind of a bait and switch. Have we not established this as a forum for discourse? Never said you can't think what you want. But if you're to bring up such...'theories' in serious discussion, it's very difficult for me to take it seriously. My calling your argument a cop-out should in no way trigger the response you gave, I believe, since I already agree. This is on a verbal, logical basis.

Or rather, I do take it seriously, because I realise its importance to you. And while the discussion thankfully isn't (and isn't allowed to be) regressing into religious justification (which, ostensibly, 'can't be argued against'), including karma as a justification the discussion off course, as far as I'm concerned.

Actually, I would agree that it's never "right" to kill anything alive, even down to the microbes. Yet there are times when it's necessary, and more relevant to this thread, times when it's "dutiful."

I actually agree. Even supposing that there is a 'right to life,' which I do endorse, and it bleeds into my opinion on animals, at the same time, I believe there are circumstances in which a necessary comparison of pragmatic value has to be made--and this bleeds into my opinion on animals, as well.

[Kaelus]

Originally Posted by Dasanudas

Personally, I would much prefer the fairness of a system where an impartial judge is acting according to duty rather than people administering justice according to emotion.

I know, people are also not very good judges... but I'm trying not to be a hypocrite. >_<

Let's say one or more of my family members is brutally murdered in a case that draws political and popular attention. I couldn't stand all those people analyzing the situation and trying to justify, solve and explain the case, judging the criminal according to their own morals that probably have nothing to do with me. Me and my loved ones would be exposed to the media, and it would become something almost commercial. The feelings of those involved will never be understoond, including the criminal.

Personally, I'd kill the murderer with my own two hands before any legal action could be taken, so I can't condemn people who act in the name of emotion. Myeh.

[bolevar321]

Originally Posted by Lockeownzj00

I suppose I can't resist eyeing that dangerous dangerous territory by saying that Quantum Mechanics is at least a working theory constantly being revised, discussed, debated, and tested.

For example, I know that I was the stud on a black bouncer's sleeve in my past life.

How very... Disrespectful. I'm sure you could have found a way to argue without making fun of that fella's religion.

Originally Posted by Lockeownzj00

I don't believe this is actually defending yourself too much. All these are established concepts in my mind and I still stand by my statement. I believe that was kind of a bait and switch. Have we not established this as a forum for discourse? Never said you can't think what you want. But if you're to bring up such...'theories' in serious discussion, it's very difficult for me to take it seriously. My calling your argument a cop-out should in no way trigger the response you gave, I believe, since I already agree. This is on a verbal, logical basis.

Or rather, I do take it seriously, because I realise its importance to you. And while the discussion thankfully isn't (and isn't allowed to be) regressing into religious justification (which, ostensibly, 'can't be argued against'), including karma as a justification the discussion off course, as far as I'm concerned.

No religious justification, huh? Ok, if that were true, we wouldn't have laws. Might makes right, the strong survive, and we evolve. That is the efficient way. That is the path that diverges from all religion. Laws tend to go by the common ground of the religions. Killing is bad, so's stealing and whatnot. True, religion can't control the gov't. Still, we can't be entirely without it. And, by the way, it's not a copout. He stated what he thinks, and the logic behind it.

Originally Posted by Lockeownzj00

I actually agree. Even supposing that there is a 'right to life,' which I do endorse, and it bleeds into my opinion on animals, at the same time, I believe there are circumstances in which a necessary comparison of pragmatic value has to be made--and this bleeds into my opinion on animals, as well.

Yep. Killing's bad, but it has to happen sometimes.

Edit: response to Kaelus: But what if you caught the wrong guy? That makes you a murderer now. That's why trials exist.
Response to someone else earlier: An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves everybody toothless and blind.

[Althane]

Hmmm... honestly, I'm trying to make up my mind on the death sentence. I'll think "Nah, it's bad to do it", and flip on the TV, seeing a story about a person who raped and killed a little girl....

Then I'll go "Woah, kill the bastard"...

So, yeah, I'm undecided. But there are some people who leave no choice but to kill, unfortunantly, such as repeat rapists, murderers. The murder of this one person prevents the murder/rape of many others, it's a good thing in this case.

[Kaelus]

Originally Posted by bolevar321

Edit: response to Kaelus: But what if you caught the wrong guy? That makes you a murderer now. That's why trials exist.
Response to someone else earlier: An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves everybody toothless and blind.

What if the trials caught the wrong guy? Justice is not absolute, and no one knows for sure what they're doing in this field.

And I'd be a murderer anyway. Even if it's justified, a kill is a kill. The State murders people every day with death penalty. I'd be willing to carry the weight of that status, I'd be willing to do anything to avenge my loved ones. Even being called a killer or a demon by society.

And yes, unfortunately, personal revenge gives you no satisfaction in return. Still, it's something I'd do without a second thought. Hatred and grudge originated in these cases never disappear, no matter how many people get killed. These situations can't be avoided until humanity changes. Until then, we can adopt any system we like... it will never work.

[Raiden]

I'm probably going to get flack for this, but I say our Death Penalty policy should be the kind of system they use for dangerous dogs.

Not saying that if someone is sick, we should put them to sleep. Far from it. However, if a person kills another person, then that's a very serious thing. Now, if it was an accident, or in a situation beyond the control of the person, then don't kill them. The situation was out of their hands.

However, if a person kills another person intentionally, or purposefully puts a person in danger with intent to kill them, then yes, they should be "put down".

A person that has the intention to kill another person, and follows through, is a very dangerous person to everyone. They shouldn't just be locked up, where they can sit around in a place for free, get free meals, and any other perks they can get in prison. It should be made sure that they cannot harm another person again. It's a matter of keeping other people in society safe.

If a dog attacks and kills someone, not in defense of their master, but simply because they felt like it, then we put that dog to sleep. That dog, if kept alive, would be a constant danger to others. Same with humans. If humans take pleasure in a kill, or kill for the sake of killing or to 'make a point' like some bombers, then they should be put to death simply because it's too risky to keep them alive.

It may sound barbaric, but it's a matter of life. Those that kill for enjoyment or take the lives of others to make a point to their government, significant other, boss, etc. are simply too dangerous, since the lives of others don't mean much to them.