[Buddha-l] Re: Texas liberals (death penalty)

[Stefan Detrez]

> 
> > I think it means, you guys ought to look at a list of other countries
> > that retain the death penalty. Nice company you keep.

 Kalyanamitra Richard wrote:

 Yes, it really is a disgrace that the death penalty has not been
> abolished throughout the United States. There are some states that do
> not allow it, but it really should be abolished everywhere in this
> country (and on the planet and in the galaxy). Abolition of the death
> penalty is, however, unlikely to occur within the next few decades in
> los Estados Unidos, until Buddhists make up the majority in the all
> three branches of government.

 Ironically, Thailand, Sri Lanka and Japan, three traditionally Buddhist 
countries still retain the death penalty. There must be something there that 
makes 'karunicity' not a conditio sine qua non for social cohesion.
 For me, I was for a long time parrotting the human rights rhetoric that 
humans have a right to life. But, -scrutinize that claim closely-, is that 
so? What 'essence' (I'm aware of the implications of this choice of word) do 
people have to claim the right to life? Excluding abortion, mercy killing 
and euthanasia from this here discussion, I'd opt to say this so called 
'right to life' can be taken away in some exclusive cases. My starting point 
to say this is the status of 'civility' or a form of social contract that 
grants the right to participation and share in the fruits of the toil of 
previous generations, based on the prospect of present or future 
contributions to the community. 
 When this participation is corrupted by mental illness leading to murder, 
murderous recidivism, mindless killing (not, for instance, the killing of a 
corrupt tiran), or no prospect of succesful reintegration, than I'd say the 
death penalty is a good option. It is, ironically, more human to kill that 
person than to dope him/her up and stick him/her away in a mental 
institution for the rest of that person's life. This is not about 
retribution, it's about making useful use of the money that would otherwise 
go to 'keeping life sentenced people alive (under strict conditions like: 
'no prospect of succesful reintegration', ...)', because of the sturdy 
principle of 'right to life', which only serves itself. You can ask 
yourself, 'should a serial murderer be kept alive, just because he has 'the 
right to life'?'
 I'm not saying every murderer should get the death penalty, but I say that 
(honest and integer) governments should have the right to kill persons that 
disrupt social cohesion or cause mass suffering by murder (a 
act-consequentialist ethic seems in place here). 
 The problem with legalising/carrying out the death penalty is that some 
governments will make abuse of it. But that alone is not a good reason 
abolish it. The debate on the death penalty should not be: 'Death penalty: 
yes/no', but 'Death penalty: in what case?', just like any other ethical 
discussion.
 Stefan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20050630/a51da060/attachment.htm