posted March 24, 2004 03:43 AM              

I am absolutely against capital punishment. Unfortunately, it exists in Taiwan- using pistols to shoot the convicted until it is certain that he/she is dead. I believe that man should not play God and no one has the right to take a life, ESPECIALLY not in the name of justice. This is simply absurd. We are all human beings and we are all God's children.

'Cause we are born innocent
Believe me, Adia, we are still innocent
It's easy we are faulty
But does it matter? ---Sarah McLachlan & Pierre Marchand

posted March 24, 2004 11:29 AM            

Murder is murder...killing is killing...and I am split on this because in some ways I think we not should kill a person/criminal, for we are judging them and taking their life into our hands therefore playing "God"....but the other half of me says that ..for example...if a person murders a child, the human side of me says that they should have the same things done to them that they did to that innocent child...

It's a REALLY big undecision for me and I've struggled with this all my life...

I'm looking forward to the other responses to this one because maybe it will help me decide one way or another...

posted March 24, 2004 09:28 PM            

When we take someone's life, we are "freeing" them from earth, into whatever level they are due to be at in the Spirit World. We are doing them a "favour".

If someone stays in prison for life, they are forced to think, think, think, about what they have done, they have a boring, limited existance. They will suffer more if they stay in prison for life, and then go to the Spirit World, when their natural death occurs, the same level we would have "freed" them to earlier, if we had put them to death.

Noone can escape their crimes. I really believe in Karma and Reincarnation, and the Universe will balance everything out. The Universe always has a way of working things out and will take care of each person's Karma, in it's own way.

posted March 24, 2004 11:52 PM              

If karma involves using people to create karma and then using people to free them of this life onto the next then karma sucks and the powers that be need a better system.

posted March 25, 2004 08:29 AM              

In Thailand, they execute convicts with machine guns.

Nowadays, lethal injection is considered 'the most humane' capital punishment, because it's painless. But watch how the inside of the body blow (if you can see it), look into the convict's eyes and see the the ultimate fear.

I do not believe that's how Karma works. The convicts will get bored? They should. Their punishment is to spend the rest of their lives in jail. Freeing them by killing them? I think not. Who are we to undertake this?

Telling people that killing is wrong by killing a human being (no matter how sinister he/she is) is simply ridiculous.

posted March 25, 2004 05:07 PM            

The operative word there is "serial".

At some point the human has exhausted their right to exist if they can't follow generally accepted rules (like not murdering except in self-defense, not molesting children, etc).

I do think lumping all the convicts together just makes for tougher convicts, and anyone who's ever had a run-in with the law, regardless of the severity, will tell you that the system treats everyone equally as shabby, BEFORE they're proven guilty even. There's something definitely wrong w/ that IMO.

I would like to see the system change to recognize more varying shades of gray. I think our penal system is based on black or white - it's based on the concept that you're either bad/evil (a lawbreaker) or you're not. I also think that only those who have short sentences for fairly benign things are the only ones who should have access to an education while incarcerated, etc.

There is that huge issue of, "who decides what is right and wrong and who decides who dies". But that doesn't mean that if someone is a serial child molester that we suspend judgement and wait for Karma to do something about it. What if Karma is one of the victim's fathers wielding a sawed off shotgun?

I don't think you're doing them a favor at all by killing them - sure time in jail is great, they're bored, miserable, incarcerated devoid of freedom. But that just lets criminals further victimize society by forcing them to pay via their taxes for that person's upkeep for the duration of their lives.

posted March 25, 2004 08:42 PM            

I won't reply to things like this anymore because I don't want people to get upset and mis-understand.

posted March 25, 2004 08:49 PM            

I don't think anyone was upset (or at least I hope not!) Some of us come across more vehemently than others sometimes, again I do apologize if I seemed to lambaste your post at all. Please don't refrain from throwing your opinion out there, your points were well made and very interesting!

posted March 26, 2004 07:36 AM              

Don't give up! Don't get low because you've received not-so-positive responses. Your opinions are treasured. As a matter of fact, I've just given it a thought on what you had said...

In 'Conversations with God', it says death is merely a transformation, that in fact, you never die. When you 'die', you are surrounded by beautiful white light and you are in peace (I'm not saying I encourage suicide and premature death).

And as Isis pointed out and as well as asked by myself earlier- do those big-time criminals deserve the tax payers' money? This is not fair, IMO. A not-so-rich society would definitely get ripped off by those convicts. Some countries simply cannot afford it. The cost is immense.

However, this is not the conclusion...

WHAT IF WE EXECUTED A WRONGFULLY ACCUSED PERSON?

posted March 26, 2004 08:42 AM              

Don't back off Nephthys. Ain't nothin' better in this world than a different perspective.

posted March 26, 2004 11:10 AM            

That being said, I must say (again ) that I agree with Tink wholeheartedly.

I understand that it seems impractical, perhaps, to "wait" around for karmic law to come into effect, etc. I also understand that karma comes in many different ways and that perhaps without an established program for the death penalty that many of these people on death row would find death at the hands of someone taking revenge, etc. I think there is a big difference between having an entire society's law and judiciary system supporting and codoning this practice, and one person deciding to act upon his intentions and take another person's life as an act of "justice". I'm not saying I support this idea of vigilanti "justice" but it does happen. At least that person is making a choice for themselves that will ultimately create karma between themselves and the person they killed. Karma is not just an individual thing ... it also affects us as a nation and some would even argue, as a race. As far as national karma is concerned, it don't think it is right to impose this sort of practice upon all the people of that nation when there are many who certainly feel it is wrong. Our tax dollars also support the death penalty, but if we disagree with it we can't just stop paying our taxes based on moral objections.
It is also interesting to me to note that it is still illegal to kill someone out of revenge, even if, say, they killed your child. I know there are many circumstances governing whether or not someone was actually guilty, etc. Hypothetically speaking then, if this person (the alleged child killer) was indeed convicted of murder and sentenced to death, and that child's parent rushes out of the court and shoots the man dead, it is still considered illegal. Sure, the system was supposed to kill the man and the parent shouldn't have interfered, but nevertheless "justice" was supposedly served and at the very least it won't cost the state money to support the man until he is executed, and also, the "execution" was free. It is a legal technicality then, and quite hypocritical, in my eyes, for the parent to also be charged with murder, seeing as how he was already sentenced to death. The whole issue doesn't make much sense to me ... killing people who kill people to teach people that killing is wrong is the biggest non sequitor I've ever heard.
There have also been cases where the families of the victims do not wish to pursue the death penalty, but the state pushes for it anyway. I would think that the victim's family members would have a right to decide whether or not they want this person sentenced to death in the name of their loved one. I know I would.
Personally, I was called to jury duty once for a criminal trial and as soon as I responded to my stance on the death penalty, I could see the prosecutors scratching my name off their list and shaking their heads. Needless to say, I was not selected for the trial. Where's the justice in that? Because I don't believe the death penalty is just then my opinion doesn't count? C'mon.
However, I do think our prisons are out of control as well and certainly a burden on tax payers. Still, I think if perhaps the money was handled/directed better, and if society would be willing to accept the possibility of rehabilitation, then the majority of criminals would be able to have a chance of starting over when their sentence is up. If the courts decide you need to spend 20 years in jail for whatever reason, then assuming you have been properly rehabilitated I see no reason for you to not have a chance to reenter society as a productive member and pull your own weight. If this were possible, then the burden of supporting life sentence criminals (the ones who are now on death row included) would certainly be eased. The main issue with rehabilitating criminals, in my opinion, is that alot of people are just plain judgemental and view criminals as less than worthy people, even if our laws have accepted that they've paid for their crimes. In light of reincarnation, these people are completely in the dark. I stress that people may do evil things, but that doesn't make them evil, and who knows what you may have done in a past life that you are now spared the memories of. If the slate can be wiped clean in "god's" eyes (through forgiveness, redemption, and atonement for your deeds) then I see no reason why it can't be cleaned in society's eyes as well.
I do, however, think that life sentences are appropriate for some, especially serial killers and child molesters, etc who, for whatever reason, simply cannot be or choose not to be rehabilitated.
I also think that the burden would be eased considerably if we did away with the separation between "white collar" prisons and "blue collar" prisons. If all the upper class criminals who launder money, etc, had to spend jail time with the poor kid from the block who robbed a convenience store then I think things would improve vastly. I also think if the money for prison accomodations were spent evenly across the board, then living conditions would improve in the majority of prisons while those spoiled criminals would have to make do without personal entertainment units like computers and televisions, etc, thus also reducing the money burden. I think an ascetic lifestyle, for the most part, would do the majority of criminals good. I don't think that education in prisons should be retracted, though, because it can be an important part of the rehabilitation process for a lot of people and it will also help to reintroduce them back into society as productive members when and if they are ready. However, I don't think pursuing a Ph.D. in prison is practical for anyone. There are also various "extracurricular" activities that, therapeutically speaking, could be given more attention ... things like gardening and painting which are fairly inexpensive and would give these people a sense of purpose and accomplishment.

The idea of executing wrongly convicted criminals speaks for itself, I think. It is beyond a tragedy. I don't believe there should be room for error when dealing with a decision to take away a person's life. Unfortunately, this sort of thing happens far more often than many people realize.

posted March 26, 2004 11:28 AM              

Watch the following:

'The Shawshank Redemption' and

'Dead Man Walking'

posted March 26, 2004 01:20 PM            

quote:

---

and if society would be willing to accept the possibility of rehabilitation, then the majority of criminals would be able to have a chance of starting over when their sentence is up.

---

They already DO attempt to rehabilitate, but how much rehabilitation does the guy who murdered someone's mother deserve? If he's a career criminal, IMO none.

I mean, except in self defense, when is it "OK" to kill someone? If some of you say never, then what about the guy who just killed your husband, or daughter, or mother? If it's never OK to kill, then what do we do about him (or her)? A conundrum that one is.

The death penalty is supposed to be a deterrent, and it's certainly no deterrent if we don't carry through. I mean what else do we use for a deterrent? Not to mention if they do it despite the deterrent, then they obviously have little or no respect for life anyway.

The reason they disqualified you from the jury is that the defense and offense both get to sort-of veto a certain amount of jurors in favor of getting a jury favorable to their case. This is to make sure that the state doesn't fill the jury with, for example, a bunch of white males w/ daughters if the defendant (let's say a black guy) is up for murdering a (white) child.

What about euthanasia? Is it wrong to do that? What about prosecuting the person who did it for murder? What then?

I mean, the whole thing is a slippery slope for sure.

posted March 26, 2004 01:41 PM            

What you quoted me on I meant to refer to all the other convicted criminals. Sorry for the confusion.

Personally, I don't think it is okay to kill someone in self defense either. I'm not trying to pass judgement here, really, but I think an attempt should be made to not kill the person. Personal karma is different, and if you want to deal with the burden then go right ahead (the death penalty casts that burden on everyone in the society). To be reasonable, I'm not saying that I can't understand why some people are killed by others because there are some situations that I just can't imagine being faced with. My stance is my ideal.
I just think capital punishmnet, upheld and condoned by our government, is not right. Not that I'm trying to make money the issue, but it would be nice if we could choose where our tax money would go and so at least not support the practice financially. Of course, that possibility is entirely unreasonable because not enough people are educated about our government and there would be a lack of funds for necessary programs and stuff.

As for the jury thing, I realize they "try" to have a balanced jury. I just think it's funny seeing as how all the prospective jurors were questioned in front of each other and out of those 60 something people, only a little more than a handful were decidedly against the death penalty. Most were undecided. Anyhow, the process took about 3 days to finish and I got to see how all the other people against the death penalty were eliminated as well. No joke. I believe I was the last one standing.

As for euthanasia, I think people have a right to choose when they will die. People can write their wills and state whether or not they want to be kept on life support, etc. and I think they should also have the right to put a decision for euthanasia in their will as well.

posted March 26, 2004 02:10 PM            

I think it's all too frequent that innocent people are wrongly convicted and put to death. Even if you execute 500 serial killers and mistakenly kill once innocent, it's still not worth it. That makes society as a collective, serial killers, if you look at it a certain way. We KNOW that innocent people fall through the cracks and are killed yet somehow this is 'acceptable'?

posted March 26, 2004 02:17 PM            

"Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?"

posted March 26, 2004 07:57 PM              

Will be back for the discussion later.