Do you believe in the death penalty?

[siti]

I've seen many videos of people getting killed and animals being slaughtered for food.

Oh dear - have you ever seen a real, live dead person? (Siti, WTF are you talking about?). Honestly - watching a video is nothing like it. You need to stand next to, say, a pig, being slaughtered - hear its squealing, watch, and smell, its blood (etc.) running out and then see it twitch and quiver until every last vestige of life has drained away. You need to feel the warm blood of a young man who just got hit by a car as you cradle his dying head while you wait for the ambulance to rush his corpse to the hospital to be pronounced DOA. You need to stand by the bedside and watch an eighty year old man physically arching his torso off the ICU bed in a last desperate but vain attempt to pull enough oxygen through his lungs to sustain his pain-racked body alive. Videos indeed! I'm not saying you have to have these experiences - I sincerely wish that I had been spared them - but once you've had them, you've got a better idea what death means - and that doesn't mean you have to agree with me on the death penalty issue - but I suspect it means you wouldn't be so blase about it whichever side you come down on.

 

[siti]

Well, again, I'm not one of the ones proposing torturing them or making a spectacle out of it.

I know - I am taking your idea of being (as you said you would be) happy to "pull the trigger" in certain cases and extrapolating to try to point out the danger of basing decisions on the death penalty on that kind of reasoning...you asked how it brings you down to the level of a depraved killer and I am showing how it could contribute to bringing the state down to the level of a depraved killer...not that the state needs any assistance in that regard...sorry to blather on - but I think it is a point worth making - not to pick an argument with you personally but because you succinctly encapsulated what seems to be a popular point of view...

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Oh dear - have you ever seen a real, live dead person? (Siti, WTF are you talking about?). Honestly - watching a video is nothing like it. You need to stand next to, say, a pig, being slaughtered - hear its squealing, watch, and smell, its blood (etc.) running out and then see it twitch and quiver until every last vestige of life has drained away. You need to feel the warm blood of a young man who just got hit by a car as you cradle his dying head while you wait for the ambulance to rush his corpse to the hospital to be pronounced DOA. You need to stand by the bedside and watch an eighty year old man physically arching his torso off the ICU bed in a last desperate but vain attempt to pull enough oxygen through his lungs to sustain his pain-racked body alive. Videos indeed! I'm not saying you have to have these experiences - I sincerely wish that I had been spared them - but once you've had them, you've got a better idea what death means - and that doesn't mean you have to agree with me on the death penalty issue - but I suspect it means you wouldn't be so blase about it whichever side you come down on.

I've seen my grandfather's corpse, a dog get hit by a car lying in the street dying, road accident victims, pets dying, pet rats eating their children, etc., but that's it. I'm sorry that death traumatizes you so much (understandable), but it doesn't change my opinion.

 

[siti]

I'm sorry that death traumatizes you so much (understandable), but it doesn't change my opinion.

It is not about me being traumatized by death - I am fine with all my experiences around death (far more than just the few I mentioned) difficult as they were at the time and despite the fact that some still trouble my thoughts because they involved people dear to me - it is about the value we attribute to life - the desperation to hold on to it...and the unquestionable trauma that must be felt by a normally functioning human if s/he were the one to have to terminate another human life at close quarters in an execution...

...anyway, I don't want to seem like I'm picking an argument with you personally - or trying to change your opinion (just arguing a point) - so I'm leaving this there now.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It can only mean one of two things. Either way too much money is being spent on death penalty procedures or way too little on life sentences.

It's wrapped up in the amount of appeals and certainties and evidence that must be produced for a death sentence hearing, and also probably I do suspect too because we invest so very minimal money in our prison system, resulting in ultra-low quality crappy food, health care that isn't even a joke, and exploited labor. And it's not just those in serving life, it's everyone who goes in as we'd rather just pretend they don't exist while they're locked up, leaving so many of the atrocious things going on in prisons "out of sight/out of mind."

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm a little late to the party but I'm against the death penalty.
Firstly because the evidence does not seem to hold up that it acts as a deterrent and worse it can escalate a crime. For example, if you make rape punishable by death, a criminal may gain freedom and lose nothing by killing the victim. Same with murder and any other witnesses.
Secondly because I think an innocent person executed by a flawed justice system is one person too many.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Then presumably the maximum benefit will be derived if we execute ALL criminals?

Yeah, I would have no problem in agreeing with death penalty for all criminals who have engaged in heinous crimes (whatever that may be in a particular country). The society is for people who follow its rules.
I do not deny that is is an unfortunate thing, but something which has to be done to safeguard the soceity.

 

[psychoslice]

Yeah, I would have no problem in agreeing with death penalty for all criminals who have engaged in heinous crimes (whatever that may be in a particular country). The society is for people who follow its rules.

I always thought you were of the Hindu faith, of course I am wrong ?.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I was about to add a word 'dharma' in my last post. Yes, I am of Hindu faith but if one has to kill for the sake of 'dharma', for the sake of society, then Krishna did not mind it, even if the person might be a relation. But, kindly note, that this killing has to be without anger or hate, and only as a necessity - 'Nishkama karma'. Involve emotions and it becomes a burden. Gita is very clear about it. Piety has its place, and duty also has its place.

".. tasmād aparihārye arthe, na tvaḿ śocitum arhasi." BG 2.27

Therefore, in the unavoidable discharge of your duty, you should not lament.

 

[siti]

Yeah, I would have no problem in agreeing with death penalty for all criminals who have engaged in heinous crimes (whatever that may be in a particular country). The society is for people who follow its rules. I do not deny that is is an unfortunate thing, but something which has to be done to safeguard the soceity.

Going by your previous post that would be "millions" of executions in India.

I was about to add a word 'dharma' in my last post. Yes, I am of Hindu faith but if one has to kill for the sake of 'dharma', for the sake of society, then Krishna did not mind it, even if the person might be a relation. But, kindly note, that this killing has to be without anger or hate, and only as a necessity - 'Nishkama karma'. Involve emotions and it becomes a burden. Gita is very clear about it. Piety has its place, and duty also has its place.

".. tasmād aparihārye arthe, na tvaḿ śocitum arhasi." BG 2.27

Therefore, in the unavoidable discharge of your duty, you should not lament.

How do you interpret the word aparihārye in this passage?

And how on earth is an executioner supposed to avoid emotion as they (cold-heartedly) terminate the life of a fellow human being? You're too right it becomes a burden - on the state and the individuals who have to "shepherd" and then "butcher" the criminals.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, India with a population of some 1270 million people may have a million of such criminals. Being lenient with them does not work.

"aparihārye - of that which is unavoidable;" Aup adds: which cannot be abandoned. Pariharan: Leaving something.
Bhagavad Gita As It Is, 2.27: Contents of the Gita Summarized, Text 27.

Yes, that is difficult, but according to Hindusim necessary and can be done. It is like doing something without expectation of results - Nishkama karma. Not being involved - Anasakti (Asakti is being involved). Being emotional about it, being involved accrues 'karma', 'sin' in Abrahamic understanding.
That is the crux of the message of Gita - do your duty not because it is pleasant or profitable, but do what is necessary according to your duty without expecting any returns.

"Ma karma-phala hetur bhu" (Don't pine for the result of your action). See the message here:
Bhagavad Gita As It Is, 2.47: Contents of the Gita Summarized, Text 47.

 

[suncowiam]

Oh dear - have you ever seen a real, live dead person? (Siti, WTF are you talking about?). Honestly - watching a video is nothing like it. You need to stand next to, say, a pig, being slaughtered - hear its squealing, watch, and smell, its blood (etc.) running out and then see it twitch and quiver until every last vestige of life has drained away. You need to feel the warm blood of a young man who just got hit by a car as you cradle his dying head while you wait for the ambulance to rush his corpse to the hospital to be pronounced DOA. You need to stand by the bedside and watch an eighty year old man physically arching his torso off the ICU bed in a last desperate but vain attempt to pull enough oxygen through his lungs to sustain his pain-racked body alive. Videos indeed! I'm not saying you have to have these experiences - I sincerely wish that I had been spared them - but once you've had them, you've got a better idea what death means - and that doesn't mean you have to agree with me on the death penalty issue - but I suspect it means you wouldn't be so blase about it whichever side you come down on.

You're using an emotional appeal to prove your case. If you're acting on emotions alone then I suggest you to sober up so you can ensure a sense of rationality on the matter.

If I were to use emotional appeals then I could make an argument for sad and angry family members that loss their loved ones due to murder. At the height of these emotions one could suggest that they might want to witness torture of the criminals even before death or imprisonment.

Golden rule, if anything else. A life taken should be a life forfeited. And no, it's not circular. It ends with the murderer's life. Simple moral: don't kill on purpose.

 

[siti]

You're using an emotional appeal to prove your case. If you're acting on emotions alone then I suggest you to sober up so you can ensure a sense of rationality on the matter.

If I were to use emotional appeals then I could make an argument for sad and angry family members that loss their loved ones due to murder. At the height of these emotions one could suggest that they might want to witness torture of the criminals even before death or imprisonment.

Golden rule, if anything else. A life taken should be a life forfeited. And no, it's not circular. It ends with the murderer's life. Simple moral: don't kill on purpose.

On the contrary, I was merely illustrating that the "appeal to emotion" argument cuts (or rather fails) both ways - more than one supporter of the death penalty declaring that they would be happy to carry out or watch the execution - that's just another way of stating the argument in your second paragraph, which - under sober consideration must be as invalid as the argument you are attributing to me. I already indicated that my intent was not to bring emotion into it but to eliminate it as a valid argument. Judging by your response, I think I've done that.

So in summary - we have now eliminated financial cost, emotion (including revenge), rehabilitation (obviously), reparation (equally obviously) and "self-defense" (protection of society) as valid arguments for the death penalty. What is left? @Aupmanyav 's 'unavoidable' dharma (duty) to maintain 'order'? But is it really 'unavoidable' given that there are no other imperatives that favour death over life without parole?

Personally, I am left with doubt over only one possibility and that's @Madhuri 's "mercy killing" - I just don't know how we could know whether death really is preferable to life in a cage (unless we give the convicted murderer the option). I feel we should probably err on the side of caution and I'm guessing most death-rowers would probably agree.

 

[Koldo]

I'm basing my position on two things:

1) In a free society, laws must be justified, and their positive effect has to outweigh any negative impact.

2) Criminal punishments have a few recognized objectives that aren't satisfied by the death penalty.

Expanding on that second point a bit, here are the four objectives of punishment that were presented to my class and I by my criminal law prof:

- specific deterrence: stop the offender from committing the crime again.
- general deterrence: use the offender as an example in order to prevent other people from committing the crime.
- inculcation: make a declaration that the crime is wrong, and by the relative severity of the sentence, how wrong it is relative to other crimes.
- rehabilitation: educate/treat/etc. the criminal in order to redirect him or her to a non-criminal life upon release.

Going from life in prison to the death penalty:

- you do nothing for specific deterrrence. The criminal's already in custody.
- you do nothing for general deterrence. Study after study have shown that the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent.
- you do nothing for inculcation. Whatever your maximum punishment is, handing down the maximum sentence communicates "this is as wrong as it gets."
- you do nothing for rehabilitation, obviously.

Now... there's nothing stopping you from wanting to live in a society that isn't free, so to that extent, we can disagree. But if you think something else should be on the list of objectives for punishment, say what it is and then we can discuss it.

Have you read about retributive justice ?

"Retributive justice is a theory of justice which holds that the best response to a crime is a proportionate[1] punishment, inflicted for its own sake rather than to serve an extrinsic social purpose, such as deterrence or rehabilitation of the offender. " - Wiki

I consider the death penalty to be the appropriate, and proportionate, punishment for murderers.

 

[ajay0]

ha, how ridiculous that is.

Even Osho too have commented on reincarnation as a factual truth. Buddha talked about rebirth.

I know my past lives as well, and established the cause and effect sequence among events in my life along with my habitual inclinations from that in the past.

Reincarnation as a science had existed for many milleniums in the east and there are techniques to know past lives that have been developed over there.

In the ancient west, Socrates, Plato and Pythagoras held belief in reincarnation.

In the west, the likes of Dr. Brian Weiss and Dr. Michael Newton achieved it through hypnotic regression. However western psychology does not have the same duration of time as eastern psychology and hence it is just tapping into the secrets which the east had known for a long time.

The death penalty can destroy the physical body of the criminal, but not his unconscious psychological tendencies which force him to err, and which can reincarnate again.

Hence the death penalty is not a very effective way to deter crime. As stated before, a holistic education is needed for the cultivation of moral and sensitive minds which would refrain from crime, and eliminate all inner unconscious tendencies for crime.

Angulimala, a serial killer in ancient India who was reformed by the Buddha is a great example in this regard.

As Victor Hugo stated, "He who opens a school door, closes a prison"

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ever visited Uttar Pradesh or Bihar? Angulimāla treatment does not work there, Chānyakya treatment works:

Shathe shāthyam Samacharet: Treat a rouge with a bamboo staff.

 

[ajay0]

Ever visited Uttar Pradesh or Bihar? Angulimāla treatment does not work there, Chānyakya treatment works:

Shathe shāthyam Samacharet: Treat a rouge with a bamboo staff.

These states lack proper administrative facilities and arrangements for law and order. Chanakya would be helpful in bringing up these states to a civilized state.

But Angulimala lived in a civilized time,and as a notorious serial killer who mutilated his victims , even the local king and officials were unable to capture him due to his knowledge of the jungle terrain and capacity for evasion.

It was the Buddha who took the initiative of meeting him in the jungle alone, and succeeded in reforming him to the point where he was non-reactive and calm, even when assaulted by the relatives of those he had killed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Have you read about retributive justice ?

"Retributive justice is a theory of justice which holds that the best response to a crime is a proportionate[1] punishment, inflicted for its own sake rather than to serve an extrinsic social purpose, such as deterrence or rehabilitation of the offender. " - Wiki

I consider the death penalty to be the appropriate, and proportionate, punishment for murderers.

I hadn't before.

I personally reject retribution for its own sake as a valid reason for punishment, so if you're going to want me to go along with you, you're going to need some justification besides "for its own sake".

 

[Koldo]

I hadn't before.

I personally reject retribution for its own sake as a valid reason for punishment, so if you're going to want me to go along with you, you're going to need some justification besides "for its own sake".

Make no mistake, I don't care if you 'go along' with me.
I just wanted to show you there is a broader spectrum of justifications than the ones you consider valid.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Make no mistake, I don't care if you 'go along' with me.
I just wanted to show you there is a broader spectrum of justifications than the ones you consider valid.

And you consider revenge a justification.