Moratorium on the Death Penalty

[bodhigirlsmiles]

yes, i am one to dredge up issues that have been discussed ad infinitum, but i am just curious....do you agree with the death penalty? if so, why? if not, why? do you agree with the statement below by the dalai lama? please keep in mind that, while i do agree with the man i hold to be my spiritual leader, i am in no way intending to condemn another's opinions. i am genuinly interested to hear your thoughtfully considered ideas on this momentous topic. thank you!

His Holiness, Tenzin Gyatso, The Fourteenth Dalai Lama

MESSAGE SUPPORTING THE MORATORIUM

ON THE DEATH PENALTY

In general, death is something none of us wants, in fact it is something we don't even like to think about. When death takes place naturally, it is a process beyond our control to stop, but where death is willfully and deliberately brought about, it is very unfortunate. Of course, within our legal systems there are said to be certain reasons and purposes for employing the death penalty. It is used to punish offenders, to prevent them ever repeating their misdeed and to deter others. However, if we examine the situation more carefully, we will find that these are not the real solutions.

Harmful actions and their tragic consequences all have their origin in disturbing emotions and negative thoughts, and these are a state of mind, whose potential we find within all human beings. From this point of view, every one of us has the potential to commit crimes, because we are all subject to negative disturbing emotions and negative mental qualities. And we will not overcome these by executing other people.

What is deemed criminal can vary greatly from country to country. In some countries, for example, speaking out for human rights is considered criminal, whereas in other countries preventing free speech is a crime. The punishments for crimes are also very different, but usually include various forms of imprisonment or hardship, financial penalties and, in a number of countries, physical pain. In some countries, crimes that the government considers very serious are punished by executing the person who committed the crime.

The death penalty fulfills a preventive function, but it is also very clearly a form of revenge. It is an especially severe form of punishment because it is so final. The human life is ended and the executed person is deprived of the opportunity to change, to restore the harm done or compensate for it. Before advocating execution we should consider whether criminals are intrinsically negative and harmful people or whether they will remain perpetually in the same state of mind in which they committed their crime or not. The answer, I believe, is definitely not. However horrible the act they have committed, I believe that everyone has the potential to improve and correct themselves. Therefore, I am optimistic that it remains possible to deter criminal activity, and prevent such harmful consequences of such acts in society, without having to resort to the death penalty.

My overriding belief is that it is always possible for criminals to improve and that by its very finality the death penalty contradicts this. Therefore, I support those organizations and individuals who are trying to bring an end to the use of the death penalty.

Today, in many societies very little importance is placed on education or the development of human values through social programs and entertainment. In fact, if we take television programming as an example, violence, including killing, is regarded as having a high entertainment value. This is indicative of how misguided we have become.

I believe human beings are not violent by nature. Unlike lions and tigers, we are not naturally equipped to kill with sharp teeth and claws. From a Buddhist viewpoint, I believe that the basic nature of every sentient being is pure, that the deeper nature of mind is something pure. Human beings become violent because of negative thoughts which arise as a result of their environment and circumstances.

I wholeheartedly support an appeal to those countries who at present employ the death penalty to observe an unconditional moratorium. At the same time we should give more support to education and encourage a greater sense of universal responsibility. We need to explain the importance of the practice of love and compassion for our own survival and to try to minimize those conditions which foster murderous tendencies, such as the proliferation of weapons in our societies. These are things even private individuals can work towards.

Tenzin Gyatso

[Traveler]

My personal experiences with death are not gruesome or dark although there are some dark elements to death. We all die. Some deaths seem useless – especially the young that die because of accidents. My point is that death is not all that strange or unusual.

I have encountered elements in human behavior that put others at risk – even mortal risk. There are some that are so self centered that they are not concerned in the least in putting others at mortal risk. If such self centered-ness is not challenged and stopped the greater the risk such behavior will bring to others. In challenging the lack of concern some have we must understand to the prevent harm to others we must be willing to maintain equal force or threat or we must accept the consequences – which is unnecessary death of innocent individuals.

For example if an individual is so selfish that they are willing to still cars for their pleasure and they are willing to kill to accomplish their desire then nothing short of defending with force to take their life and prevent them from accomplishing what they will. We must accept their actions – even if it means the loss of many innocent lives. It is the same as saying that if someone threatens us with more than we are willing to protect against then they win and can have whatever they desire.

This point does not stop with car but is extended to anything to which we think we have right that someone else desires to take from us. If they are willing to take our life to gain what they desire and we are not willing to stop them with the same force with which they threaten us – then we really do not have any such right. The “right” only exists with those that will exercise it.

Now, one may argue that we do not have to kill someone to punish them – but if they are willing to kill rather than be punished how can we expect to capture them for punishment. It would be like telling our police not to carry any weapon of deadly force (because they might use that force to kill) and telling all the criminals if they are willing to use deadly force no one will ever stop them except perhaps another criminal that may want what the desire more than them.

I do not believe in giving power to those that do not respect the law of the majority.

The Traveler

[bodhigirlsmiles]

My personal experiences with death are not gruesome or dark although there are some dark elements to death. We all die. Some deaths seem useless – especially the young that die because of accidents. My point is that death is not all that strange or unusual.

I have encountered elements in human behavior that put others at risk – even mortal risk. There are some that are so self centered that they are not concerned in the least in putting others at mortal risk. If such self centered-ness is not challenged and stopped the greater the risk such behavior will bring to others. In challenging the lack of concern some have we must understand to the prevent harm to others we must be willing to maintain equal force or threat or we must accept the consequences – which is unnecessary death of innocent individuals.

For example if an individual is so selfish that they are willing to still cars for their pleasure and they are willing to kill to accomplish their desire then nothing short of defending with force to take their life and prevent them from accomplishing what they will. We must accept their actions – even if it means the loss of many innocent lives. It is the same as saying that if someone threatens us with more than we are willing to protect against then they win and can have whatever they desire.

This point does not stop with car but is extended to anything to which we think we have right that someone else desires to take from us. If they are willing to take our life to gain what they desire and we are not willing to stop them with the same force with which they threaten us – then we really do not have any such right. The “right” only exists with those that will exercise it.

Now, one may argue that we do not have to kill someone to punish them – but if they are willing to kill rather than be punished how can we expect to capture them for punishment. It would be like telling our police not to carry any weapon of deadly force (because they might use that force to kill) and telling all the criminals if they are willing to use deadly force no one will ever stop them except perhaps another criminal that may want what the desire more than them.

I do not believe in giving power to those that do not respect the law of the majority.

The Traveler

thank you for your honesty. what are your thoughts on the death penalty specifically....as in those that have already been captured and are being held for crimes that, in some places, would warrant their life being taken?

[a-train]

I'd let the states each determine whether they will employ the death penalty. The Federal Government however, should not be allowed to inflict the death penalty.

-a-train

[bodhigirlsmiles]

I'd let the states each determine whether they will employ the death penalty. The Federal Government however, should not be allowed to inflict the death penalty.

-a-train

interesting. do you say this from a political or moral standpoint?

[rameumptom]

Personally, I'm ambivalent. I recognize that states have the right to preserve society and order. Preservation of society includes going to war, preferably in defense. That means people die. I'm not aware of the Dalai Lama's views on defense in war time, but given the continual physical actions by monks of his order in Tibet to fight against China, I'd say that killing in defense is possibly a viable option.

The issue is whether the death penalty is used because society is defending itself or is imposing a punishment. If it is the former, and the death penalty is deemed necessary for society to continue, then perhaps there is a reason for the death penalty. If it is solely for the purpose of punishment, then we should consider the alternatives. A quick death may not be as much punishment as a long imprisonment.

The death penalty should never be an easy issue for a society to deal with. When society has complacently accepted it, it has lessened the value of life. Life must not be considered as a cheap trinket that can be tossed away, otherwise there is no value to human existence. Certain things tend to cheapen and degrade the human experience: casual sex, prostitution, pornography, violence, and the thousands of murders seen on television each day. The state must use caution not to become what they seek to destroy, and use the death penalty in a cautious and wise manner, if at all.

[prisonchaplain]

Atrain's view is particularly interesting, in that only two inmates have been executed under federal jurisdiction in the last 30 years. The better known of the two was Timothy McVea. I'm not sure why the feds, who obviously are much more cautious, have less moral authority than the states.

While I do not view the death penalty as wrong, in itself, I'm deeply concerned with the way it's carried out in the U.S. First, it's more expensive than life imprisonment, because we are cautious. And yet, a disproportionate % of those executed on poor or minorities. Additionally, technological advances are showing us that the error-rate is likely higher than we suspected, causing me to wonder if this is worth it.

[a-train]

interesting. do you say this from a political or moral standpoint?

Really both. I don't believe it is immoral for society to inflict the death penalty in circumstances wherein the malefactor is of certain danger to and in contempt of liberty. I would advocate the death penalty for murderers to be sure.

The political reason for the death penalty to be removed from the power of the Federal Government is to prevent the abuse of this power for political purposes. Whereas such an atrocity has not been the case in recent history, we DO have indications, such as off-shore federally controlled prisons wherein prisoners are held without any right to trial (habeas corpus) and tortured therein, that executive powers have grown far and away from their constitutional confines.

As far as the errors in state courts are concerned, I think the problem is in the process of trial, not the punishment. Those wrongly convicted would have been wrongly imprisoned regardless. We need to focus on getting back to 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Part of the problem is the pre-emptive efforts of the courts. It is not the job of the courts to prevent crime. We need to get back to justice. A robber of goods would do better to renew the property to the victims, not rot in a cell at further expense.

There are many troubles in the courts and among them also are the lack of accountability of law enforcement. Illegal search and seizure poses no great threat to the police than the loss of efficacy of evidence collected in court. Here we have two wrongs making a right. If the criminal and the police have both violated the law, they should both be brought to justice, meaning they should both repay their damages.

-a-train

Edited November 13, 2008 by a-train

[countrygirl66]

I beleive sometimes the death penalty is warranted. I wouldn't be able to carry it out myself, however I am glad that there are those who do. I think a small percentage of people cross lines that give up their conciance and humanity. Once there I don't think they come back. I do beleive that we have a responsibility to remove these people from the equasion for the safety and justice of others.

That being said I am also a big big supporter of early intervention. ex - I worked with a family a few years ago that lost their son to the foster care system (me) because of drugs, domestic violence etc. I worked with them for over a year. They took advantage of all programs and counciling available. They did everything they could to get him back. I was talking to the dad one day and he told me that his dad started him smoking pot when he was 12. He said it was hard to go from that to making right choices. They got their son back and it was wonderful. They still send me pictures and letters. They are 3 years clean and moved to another state to be away from his family. Early intervention worked wonders for their son.

[Elgama]

For me its a mute point last person to face the death penalty in my country did so in 1964 it was abolished in most cases in 1969 and completely in 1998. I think for me the interesting thing is the last few people to be hung several in 2008 may not even have been charged with murder.

Growing up in Britain you tend to learn about history (or used to) from the gruesome stuff and that includes the stories of the 6 year old hung for stealing a pot of paint, or the seven year old for inciting revolution who cried for his Mum on the scaffold or the German Prince that beheaded a mouse for knocking over its soldiers - it has been so severely misused over the years personally I do not trust my state and judciary to be responsible

-Charley

[abqfriend]

I am a Catholic.

My Church is pro-life and so am I.

My Church does not support the death penalty.

I support them in that effort.

Here is a .pdf file link on the official document on the subject:

http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/penaltyofdeath.pdf

-Carol

[NeuroTypical]

The three arguments for the death penalty that make sense to me:

- Deterrence: If you know you might get the death penalty, maybe you'll only rob that guy, instead of robbing him, raping his daughter, and leaving them both dead in a ditch.

- Justice: Difficult to agree on a definition, but basically, for some crimes, death is the only way to satisfy the demands of justice (IMO).

- The ultimate, and only 100% foolproof, means of preventing repeat offences: If you want to see true pessimism, go have lunch with a corrections officer. Representative quote: "Evil most certainly exists on this earth - and it's my job to release evil into society every Tuesday." But basically, you will have a segment of humanity who will rape and kill no matter what, and that will be true unless you wish to lock them up in solitary confinement until the end of their days, or execute them.

Now, of course there are valid and powerful arguements against the death penalty. But our good friend Bhodagirlsmiles asked if I agreed with it, so I figured I'd give the reasons why I do.

LM

[prisonchaplain]

It's ironic, but a "pro-life" argument in favor of the death penalty is that crimes such as cruel and unusual premeditated murder, must be answered by execution. Anything less says that we, as a society, do not consider the victim's life deprived as serious enough to merit the punishment of death.

Also, while life imprisonment does protect society from homicidal socio-paths, why should we employ and put at risk custody-staff, merely for the sake of warehousing them?

I have mixed opinions, some of them strong, but no definitive conclusions. :::sigh:::

[FunkyTown]

I disagree with the death penalty because if someone really badly hurt my family, I wouldn't want to be executed for shooting them.

[Traveler]

thank you for your honesty. what are your thoughts on the death penalty specifically....as in those that have already been captured and are being held for crimes that, in some places, would warrant their life being taken?

I support the death penalty for certain crimes that take the life of others as a society sees fit in forming laws. The reason is because of how I feel about myself. I personally fear what I would have to do to myself to go on living with myself knowing I had done such a thing to someone else. I would prefer my own death than find an excuse to live with such a crime. I believe any reasonable person should think in this manner and therefore I respect the death penalty for myself and others that have such respect for human life.

Some may see a paradox in my standing since I have served in the military in circumstances where I would take another life in defense of my country.

I believe that a man that honors G-d cannot choose to take another human life of them self. It is not a choice given to any individual. But I also believe that the law can choose to take a life and it is the responsibility of citizens to obey and carry out the law.

There are many things to think about – Is it any less respect of a human life to be able to prevent someone else from taking a life and doing nothing; than it is to be a part of a plan to take a life yourself but think it less because someone carries out the deed for you? I believe that if we choose allow a society to shed the blood of those that are innocent that their blood is on our hands as if we did it.

The Traveler

Edited November 14, 2008 by Traveler

[countrygirl66]

I am curious as to what you guys/girls think? My brother was murdered at 16. He was at a party (maybe) with some friends. One kid (20's) got him away from there (drove a ways away) and killed him. We don't know how because we didn't find his body until winter was over (about 4 1/2 months). Anyways this kid and his buddies lied and lied to the police. Recently we found out from kids (20's at the time) who were there that this individual murdered my brother and came back to the party and laughed and joked about it. He said things like yah guess what I just did. I killed ****** aren't we all glad he is dead. He joked about it and laughed about it several times after. He will never be prosecuted for his crime. I would be interested to know how you feel about the fact that about 20 years later he is living among you all. I keep separated from where he is, but I know he is just skippy happy living. Do you want him to be hanging out with your 30 something children. Does he deserve to spend his life in prison? No remorse. Nothing. Should he be put to death? I know nothing will ever happen to him. But the question is does our suffering and loss mean nothing? I have worked through this the best i can, but it will always hurt.

[Elgama]

cg - loss of any kind needs working through, its paricularly painful when you have someone who you can aim your hate and anger at. I can't imagine your feelings about the whole situation, but I think thats why actually thoughts and feelings of those close to the victim shouldn't be taken into account in the judicial process.

I feel personally that like Chief Blue its important to forgive and leave it in Heavenly Father's hands

-Charley

[a-train]

Growing up under the hardships of my father's murder at my age of six, I can completely feel you. The perpetrator, was never convicted and killed others. He was ultimately caught and placed in prison. There, he received food, clothing, shelter, health care, cable television, and other provisions. The cost to society for his imprisonment was more than what little the widow with three children left by his crime received from social security. Once convicted of multiple homicides, he should have been executed rather than taken in at further expense to society.

There seems to be little argument that invading armies approaching to take life and property warrant lethal force in the protection of society and human life. When an attempting assassin is shot to death in his murderous efforts, there is little cry against the treatment he receives.

There is an imagined window of opportunity that closes after the perpetrator has inflicted the wounds of death and vacated the murder scene. It now becomes pointless to use lethal force against him as he enjoys the spoils of his crime. Insomuch that he can be arrested without killing him, society wants him alive. After he is tried and convicted the use of lethal force is deemed too harsh as he is clearly under certain controls. However, if he should rise up in an attempt to escape and commence violence against those guards placed over him, it is perceived that another window opens wherein lethal force becomes acceptable.

In each case, it is the perpetrator who has opened this window. My question is: what right does he have to close it and how do we know that it is closed?

-a-train

Edited November 14, 2008 by a-train

[NeuroTypical]

Recently we found out from kids (20's at the time) who were there that this individual murdered my brother and came back to the party and laughed and joked about it. He said things like yah guess what I just did. I killed ****** aren't we all glad he is dead. He joked about it and laughed about it several times after. He will never be prosecuted for his crime.

Why will he never be prosecuted? There's no statute of limitations on murder, ya know.

LM

[countrygirl66]

He will never be procecuted because it is a small town and we are whie trash. It is kind of considered along the lines of what those kind of people do to each other. I have accepted it. But it is hard.

[declanr]

I do not believe in the death penalty, it is much simpler for me than a morality v. society question, as humans we are of course subject to error, the DP is irreversible error.

Also in this Country I believe it is more costly to execute somebody that to simply incarcerate them for life.

[Bookmeister]

The only reason it's more costly, to execute someone than to simply pay for them for the rest of their lives is because of the vast amount of legal effort expended trying to change a death penalty sentence. The actual costs of caring for a condemned prisoner prior to his or her execution (excluding the legal costs) are actually less.

But, since we have the legal system we have, all of those litigious costs are probably necessary.

On the other hand...................well, I'm not going to go there cause it'll upset some people. Suffice it so say that if you're willing to kill in defense of your country, you certainly ought to be willing to kill to defend your home, your family, and your society.

It's also much cheaper to bury a dead criminal caught in the act than to spend all that time and effort in trial and incarceration.

[abqfriend]

Other than killing in acts of war-why cannot we be Pro-Life?

Part of country seems to want to be Pro-life on some things-but Pro-death on others.

To me-Pro-Life-means Pro-Life.

Two states now -(Oregon and Washington State) allow medically legal suicide for terminally ill patients.

My husband has a terminal illness-but he is very much Pro-Life.

-Carol

[Elgama]

I think sometimes being too vehmently pro life can cause us to fear death - whilst I cannot condone it being LDS I completely understand those with a medical condition wanting to die. That to me is very different from someone else taking another persons life

-Charley

[Fiannan]

Other than killing in acts of war-why cannot we be Pro-Life?

Part of country seems to want to be Pro-life on some things-but Pro-death on others.

To me-Pro-Life-means Pro-Life.

Two states now -(Oregon and Washington State) allow medically legal suicide for terminally ill patients.

My husband has a terminal illness-but he is very much Pro-Life.

-Carol

One cannot make the life of a cold-blooded killer as vital to protect as the life of an innocent child(a month before birth or a month after). There is no logical reason to preserve someone who has takenthe life of another human being who was innocent. Personally, when I hear of all the inmates waiting on death row and then hear a story about a person dying for want of a kidney, heart, etc. I have to grant the Chinese some respect since they execute inmates, then send the doctor in with a refrigerated van to get all the healthy parts so the killer can help save the lives of innocent people.