By Kaunteya Das
Are we, as an organization, for or against the death penalty? The answer might not be as simple as it appears, and either way, might involve some danger.
Recently Italy’s foreign minister, Mr. Massimo D’Alema, was at the United Nations in New York to push for a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty. There is a rising movement, centered in Europe, claiming that the death sentence is brutal and anachronistic, even barbaric. I don’t doubt the good intentions of these leaders (which count among themselves eminent religionists, like the Pope); their efforts stems from humanitarian reasons, but unfortunately, they are unaware of the details of the law of karma and ignorant of the dynamics of the transmigration of the soul.
I know devotees in Western Europe who decided that if asked by the media, they would answer that in general we are against the death penalty (that is, if only a short answer were requested; otherwise, they would be open to say that for certain crimes, and when the guilt is beyond doubt, the death penalty could be appropriate).
These devotees sense the risk of being branded as cruel fundamentalists. They also say that, yes, the death penalty is Vedic—it’s in the scriptures, and certainly there’s no philosophical reason to, in principle, be against it, but to apply it properly it would take a judicial system manned by wise judges, who won’t be swayed by corruption or political considerations; since in most countries the judiciary isn’t properly qualified, the death penalty should be suspended.
I see problems in that stance. That certain criminals, such as murderers, should be killed is not contigent upon having ideal kings or ideal judges. In any punitive decision there’s a decision to enforce pain and retract liberty. Indeed, what judge is perfect? So should we challenge the legitimacy of every sentence passed by every judiciary in the world? Should we doubt the competency of every judge on the planet and relativize all their conclusions?
More importantly, it was not for some hypothetical leaders of bygone ages that Srila Prabhupada wrote his books; rather, they are meant for guiding and informing the decision of modern men and women, including rulers and judges.
Consider the following: “A life for a life is just punishment for a person who cruelly and shamelessly lives at the cost of another’s life. Political morality is to punish a person by a death sentence in order to save a cruel person from going to hell. That a murderer is condemned to a death sentence by the state is good for the culprit because in his next life he will not have to suffer for his act of murder.” (Srimad-Bhagavatam, 1.7.37, purport)
These instructions are also applicable today.
We could actually welcome the raising of the death-penalty issue as a chance to promote the views and standards of Srimad-Bhagavatam.
Although there might be a laudable element of caution and diplomacy in the devotees who choose an anti–death-penalty stand, I suspect an influence of cowardice in the choice, a fear of boldness, and a preferring to “go with the flow.” Yes, we might gain some temporary approval: “The Hare Krishnas are progressive too—very good!” We might win the day by pleasing the public, but later on we might encounter more obstacles; for instance, scholars, journalists, and thoughtful persons will one day come across passages in Srila Prabhupada’s books such as:
“According to Manu’s law, when a person commits murder, punishment is beneficial for him because if he is not killed he might commit more and more murders and therefore be entangled in his future lives for having killed so many persons.” (Srimad-Bhagavatam, 4.6.4, purport)
This and other similar purports won’t disappear, nor change with changing times. Hence one day we might be accused of hypocrisy and disloyalty—and then have to explain that.
Let’s not forget that we have strong reasons that, once properly contextualized, could well appeal to the merciful—for instance: “Such a death sentence for the murderer is the lowest possible punishment offered to him, and it is said in the smrti-sastras that men who are punished by the king on the principle of a life for a life are purified of all their sins, so much so that they may be eligible for being promoted to the planets of heaven” (Srimad-Bhagavatam, 1.7.37, purport)
Wow, heaven! So the killer is executed and might go up to paradisiacal realms!
The modern “humane” approach sends the culprit to jail to suffer (often in hellish conditions) for a number of years, and then, at death, he still might even have to go to the “real” hell.
Which of the two approaches is more charitable and merciful?
Of course the superiority of the death penalty might be difficult to explain to the advocates of (apparent) clemency, especially when their endevors take the flavor of a crusade of righteousness. But isn’t one of our roles in society to explain things as they are, even if they be difficult to present to the uninformed?
Due to the historically recurrent tendency of priests to go along with current trends, to avoid censure and the loss of support and approval, I am simply concerned that we don’t choose the easy way out regarding such a morally sticky issue as the death penalty. I respect the deliberation of devotees who prefer a more moderate stand on this issue—their camp counts highly respectable and advanced Vaisnavas, whom I revere—but I see danger in presenting a positition that risks being too conditioned by circumstantial, relative factors. I also see the danger of our movement coming to a point of having directly opposite positions in different countries: anti–death-penalty in the West, and pro–death-penalty in those nations whose traditions and laws uphold it, and that, understandably, have no intention to concede to the anti-death-penalty campaign.
How would I answer if a TV interviewer were to ask me whether I am for or against the death penalty? Of course it would depend on how much time I was allowed, and on the nature of the program, but possibly I would say something like:
“I am against the death penalty—for animals and unborn children. As far as adult humans are concerned, we can discuss what cases the death penalty may be appropriate for. The tradition to which we refer extols the benefits of the death penalty, not only for society, but indeed also for the criminal—when properly applied, of course. But in general, I suggest that before drawing conclusions on the death penalty, we discuss and understand exactly what is death and what is life. Otherwise, our decisions might well be dictated by dogma, prejudice, and superstition, not by knowledge, and as a result, despite our good intentions, we might end up doing more harm than good.”
I like that response! “I am against the death penalty – for animals and unborn children.”
That’s enough I feel.
Until this point is established, we cannot continue to discuss anything beyond that. The audience we are speaking to does not have enough common ground to dialog with.
We will speak and use words, but what we are talking about and the conceptions they will connect that with in their minds will be two different things.
We don’t need to enter into such a meaningless realm of debate.
“If you cannot understand that to kill defenseless children and animals is wrong, then you are an animal, and how can we then talk of matters of human beings? First you come to the human platform.”
That is our strong point – we need to redefine the ground of debate to something realistic for the level of the participants. It’s analogous to telling someone to understand they are not the body first if they ask about intimate Krishna-lila.
The need for good judicial systems for carrying out the death penalty is obvious. People in the U.S. are often convicted for capital crimes and then later exonerated. In recent times the use of DNA evidence has resulted in a number of exonerations. Often the prosecutors are so keen on winning and getting their conviction that they cheat a bit. And even when they do not cheat, courts and juries make mistakes. So . . . we want to avoid executing the innocent.
One of the major, long-time historical opponents of the death penalty in the U.S. has been the N.A.A.C.P. (“National Association for the Advancement of Colored People”) A great deal of sociological evidence has been presented that the death penalty in the U.S. has been applied in a racist way. (The U.S. has this whole history of slavery and then segregation and Ku Klux Klan terrorism, lynchings, church bombings, etc.) So . . . we want to avoid executing people in a way that is inherently racially biased.
I do not see why ISKCON has to have a position on controversial political issues of the day. Can’t devotees be in different political parties, or have different political positions?
When JFK ran for president there were concerns in some quarters whether a Catholic would have “divided loyalties” (presumably, the Pope would have too much influence). In 1928, Al Smith, the first serious Catholic presidential candidate, lost in a landslide to Herbert Hoover, and anti-Catholic prejudice may have been a factor.
I’d like to think that a Hare Krishna candidate could be seen as his own man (or woman), whose policies and views on the issued might be influenced, but would not be dictated, by his or her spiritual convictions, let alone by the dogma of an organized church.
Really, the Hare Krishna movement has a lot better things to talk about than current political hot buttons. It is not really ISKCON’s ambition to mix it up in the hurly burly of politics. Do we need to have a position on tariffs, immigration reform, interest rates, tax reform, Iraq war, gay marriage, gun control?
On the death penalty, we can be above the fray and just say that, Vedic scriptures provide for capital punishment for certain crimes when guilt is clear. Whether and how it should be implemented by any particular modern state is not something we as a movement are particularly concerned with, and different Hare Krishnas may have different opinions about it.
I like Kaunteya Prabhu’s answer, which deflects the discussion into an area we have something more specific to say about: What is death? Why do we have to die anyway? What is the difference between a live body and a dead body? Materialism is a death sentence to everyone. Would you like to hear about the science on how to become immortal?
Well said, Sita Pati Prabhu!
It reminds me of how Srila Prabhupada often said to Christian leaders, “First understand this point. ‘Thou shalt not kill’ means do not eat meat.”
They usually tried to change the subject, but he persisted. He was not going to talk about anything else. “First understand it is wrong to kill innocent animals.”
Dear prabhus,
This is such a hot topic. So hot in fact, that many governments wonder whether to have referendums and let the general public decide on implementing the death penalty, ye or nay. More often than not, the world tendency to abolish the death penalty usually sways their arguments over and above that of the sometimes seething public.
But from a Hare Krishna point of view we need to see in terms of what Sastra has to say, as opposed to the new awakening of aquarius type modern enlightenment has to offer. It is considered to be progressive to be anti-death penalty – a sign of the times. One is deemed to be a grotesque sadistical outdated barbarian to support such a thing – also the sign of the times.
In New York city they have a zero-tolerance stance which seems to help in lowering crime levels. Here in South Africa a whole range of issues are blamed for the ever increasing rise in crime. Then we have blue and white collar crime, cyber crime, organized crime and the rest. Crime is said to be on the increase the world over.
Next we have crimes which are not considered to be crimes, but are crimes according to Sastra: slaughterhouses, abortion, cruel experiments on animals, unwarranted warfare, teaching and propogating atheism, turning a blind eye to true justice, ruining the environment in the name of progress, diverting people from the path of genuine religion, pornography, gambling enterprises, mass liquor consumption, and much, much more.
The breaking of the four principles of decent human life and their corrolaries are all done with the express approval of the leaders of the people – a sure sign of the times. It is these times which seeks a so called enlightened break from the judicial values of cruel outmoded aboriginal scriptures, and which wholly embraces the commiting of crimes they forbid.
The ancient Vedic civilization has been around for a great deal longer than the upstart industrialized era we now live in. To disapprove of the death penalty so as to warm to this modernism which allows Sastric crimes to be committed, is to limit our vision supposedly gained by seeing through Sastra.
The Vedic tradition and the wise people who upheld high values, knew well how to handle matters of justice. Death for the six types of aggressors, proven beyond all doubt, was the system to keep the law abiding citizens content. How many modern day citizens complain that more rights seem to be given to perpetrators of crime than for the victims?
There is a sense of equalitybeing promoted which distorts matters of justice, both right and wrong. If the rich have access to formidable lawyers, then no-one is equal before the law. This example alone can explain the perverse sense of justice which prevails, which would not be allowed in a just Vedic situation. For these reasons, there should be no hesitating about the death penalty, provided that guilt is proven beyond all shadow of a doubt, in which case a jail term would suffice, pending more information.
As Iskcon is a worldwide body it may be impracticle to have a party-line so to speak, where a set policy or persuasion is given to the media or other interested parties. But it would help to have some consistency at least. But far from being old fashioned, if we repeat what Satraa says, we are actually being futuristic, as they are timeless. It will not be very long before more and more people cry out for the death penalty, and we as Hare Krishnas had better be right now, and say yes, rather than go with the flow and say something different again to appease ever fluctuating public demands.
Ys, Kesava Krsna dasa.
I think it is obvious. Devotees should be against the death penalty. As Akruranath prabhu has nicely pointed out, the crux of the matter in today’s world (as opposed to an age where justice is handed out properly) is that the death penalty is selective and often wrongly enforced. not only is their racial bias there is also political and other biases that can be brought to bear. While I also agree with the other learned vaisnavas in this thread, the starck reality of how the death penalty is meted out in today’s societies (mostly in the U.S.A and China and Islamic countries, in the U.S.A where more often then not prosecutors are adharmic in their motives, goals and methodology in prosecuting cases as has been repeatedly exposed by various media and law organizations, and China where politics is often the motivation, and Islamic countries where any number of adharmic considerations weigh in on many cases).
What devotees should promote is dharma, duty not beholden to special interests nor personal bias and ambitions. Since this is the age of adharma, and since it has been starkly shown repeatedly how innocent people are jailed, convicted, and killed, through an adharmic process, how can devotees be for the death penalty in today’s world? There doesn’t have to be a simplistic answer to a complex question. Nor should devotees expect that we won’t be asked these political questions or that if we are we should ignore them. We have to stand for dharma, that means in the current world system where every country is ruled by corruption and adharma, the death penalty is therefore adharmic. With so much corruption and adharmic intent in the current systems of the world, it is impossible to make sure that in every case the person sentened to death actually deserves it according to dharmic principles. This has been proven over and over. Therefore the only dharmic conlcusion is that the death penalty in today’s reality is being used adharmically, and is therefore adharma
Where is the innocent person in this world? Krishna says to Arjuna, “O son of Kunti, declare it boldly that My devotee never perishes.” By nature’s arrangement, under His authority, everyone who is not Krishna’s devotee suffers repeated death sentences. No doubt the killing of helpless creatures plays a significant role in that. Whether we are for or against capital punishment in the worldly courts, everyone receives the results of their karma, which is carried with the subtle body to be felt in due course of time. Hence the appearance of injustice. We have no choice in this matter, except to engage them in devotional service via hearing Hare Krishna, tasting Krishna prasadam, and other transcendental activities.
Where we do have a choice, however, is whether follow Srila Prabhupada’s direct instructions or to come up with some other conclusion based on our individual speculative processes. I have not read or heard all of Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, but I have seen and heard many instances where he spoke in favor of the death penalty, and none that were against it. It makes no sense to me to say that his instructions were applicable to societies thousands of years ago, but not to the present day. His instructions are for us, who are living in this apparently imperfect world now, to live by and to repeat to others. As Srila Prabhupada’s followers, we cannot afford to preach different conclusions. “Those who are on this path are resolute in purpose, and their aim is one. O beloved child of the Kurus, the intelligence of those who are irresolute is many-branched.” Our resolution is to follow Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, and we should do that. If someone knows of any instance where Srila Prabhupada has spoken against the death penalty, I would like to hear of it. Hare Krishna.
Pandu das prabhu, of course everyone is receiving their karma, but that doesn’t mean that dharma should be given up. Christians like to point out that the ideology of karma leads to fatalism and inaction e.g. “If everyone is experiencing their destiny then no one will care to help those who are suffering'”, your point of view is what they are talking about. In fact if is the duty of anyone to aid those who are suffering if they can, that is dharma, those who don’t aid when they can will experience bad karma themselves. If we apply your way of thinking then why do we promote non-violence to animals? Aren’t they experiencing their karma? If you blindly promote the death penalty claiming that vedic standards should apply regardless of time, place or circumstance, while claiming that people get what they desrve anyways, then you promote adharma in the name of dharma. Krsna stands for dharma, yada yada hi dharmasya, his devotees should be careful to understand what that means before speaking out in favor of adharma in his name. When Arjuna told Krsna that it was better for him to renounce from what he considered to be materialistic action and retreat to spiritual contemplation, what did Krsna tell him about his idea?
mac-cittah sarva-durgani
mat-prasadat tarisyasi
atha cet tvam ahankaran
na srosyasi vinanksyasi
If you become conscious of Me, you will pass over all the obstacles of conditional life by My grace. If, however, you do not work in such consciousness but act through false ego, not hearing Me, you will be lost.
Between incompetent defense attorneys, corrupt prosecutors and judges, and cases being overturned by DNA evidence; how can we trust our current judicial system with matters of life and death? Remember, this is part of the same system that allows organized mass animal slaughter and other heinous acts. How do we know who is bought and paid for? Imagine if one of our sons or daughters were wrongly accused of a capital offense. When preaching we have to carefully consider how others view us in terms of applying scriptural injunctions according to time, place and circumstance. Otherwise, we look like mindless blind followers of a sectarian doctrine.
Dear Siva prabhu,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Hare Krishna.
Before I had accepted Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, I was against the death penalty. By Krishna’s mercy, though, I’ve developed enough faith to accept Srila Prabhupada’s opinion as superior to my own. As I said, I have seen and heard several statements of Srila Prabhupada in favor of the death penalty, but none condemning it. I’m sure you’re far more educated than I am in Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, so I assumed you would produce some quotes enlightening me. Instead you seem more interested in pitting my personal understanding against yours. I’m not entirely comfortable with that, but I’ll do what I can to satisfy you. Please do not take any offense.
As much as I understand the situation criminal forensics, it seems that the justice system has drastically improved in recent years. Otherwise how have so many people been exonerated from death row? None the less, we can expect that there will be some mistakes in finding someone guilty of a crime that he or she did not commit, just as people are sometimes wrongly found innocent. Human beings are definitely not perfect judges, but we have to act one way or another. I of course do not know the ins and outs of every legal system on the planet, but as I understand it at least here in the USA it takes a unanimous proclamation of guilt by a jury of twelve, and a death sentence is subject to three stages of automatic appeal, a process that takes many years. In spite of this, sometimes people are executed for crimes they did not commit.
Even though we may not have the ability to understand all that is happening with respect to karma, we cannot disregard it. Not long ago I was called into court for a speeding ticket, and even though I was truthful (actually I admitted guilt but under extenuating circumstances), the judge did not believe me; and so I was found guilty and had to pay a fine. Feeling a little righteous, I wanted to say that I live in pursuit of the truth and therefore don’t lie, but I know that I’ve gotten away with many lies in the past, and so I accepted this as punishment. If we do not have to sometimes accept punishment for crimes that we did not commit, then what should we think about the crimes that we may have gotten away with in the past? Do these go unpunished? Srila Prabhupada has explained that the karmic reactions of devotees are summarized by Krishna’s mercy, but for those who are under the jurisdiction of material nature, everything weighs out perfectly in due course of time. The only thing we can do to stop it is to share the same mercy that was given to us.
As I’ve understand Srila Prabhupada’s instructions in cases of murder, the duty of the state is to execute the killer. (Obviously his teachings are specifically applicable to the present, as the kings of long past could not read his purports.) Occasionally the result is that mistakes are made, but we have to understand all this to be part of the Divine plan. Even if the prosecutor is corrupt, does that fall outside the realm of karma? These things happen in kali yuga. It doesn’t mean we scrap the perfect Vedic perspective. We have to promote the Vedic understanding as we have heard it from Srila Prabhupada. To do this is most merciful, and it is our duty as disciples under Srila Prabhupada. We have to apply and share Srila Prabhupada’s teachings directly, as they are, not take a little here and there to come out with an interpretation that is opposite to his direct conclusion. If he directly says that capital punishment is proper, then we should not pick from here and there to contradict him.
In the matter of stopping animal slaughter, that has been a constant personal mission in my adult life. We cannot stop death, nor can we stop cruelty in this world; that is, unless we can spread Krishna consciousness to everyone. I was a vegetarian and an animal rights activist before I ever heard of Srila Prabhupada, but these may only bring some temporary relief; I eventually learned the real thing is giving Krishna consciousness. Mundane social work is nice, as it promotes peace and makes the public favorable to devotees, but apart from Krishna consciousness, it’s ultimately insignificant. The only way to stop the suffering in the world is to give Krishna consciousness; and the way for us to do that is to adhere to Srila Prabhupada’s straightforward teachings and to teach others his transcendental philosophy. With that I think I’ve come full circle. If anyone can present direct statements of Srila Prabhupada to show that he was actually opposed to the contemporary application of the death penalty, then I will be much obliged. Hare Krishna.
Sincerely, your servant,
Pandu das
Over the course of time, after the guru’s vaphu leaves, external situations tend to change. Bearing this in mind, when this occurs, disciples are left to examine their guru’s words and see how they apply to a current situation that wasn’t existent when the guru’s vapuh was with them.
Even when Srila Prabhupada was on the planet, his ideas about how to apply Vedic principles changed as he became more aware of the logistics. One case in point is polygamy. It is my understanding that he ultimately spoke against the idea of its application in ISKCON. It does not appear that this was always so. What changed his stance? Whatever it was specifically (and others know the history better than me), the point is Prabhupada adjusted his application of Vedic principles according to time, place and circumstance.
Times continue to change. Should we be blind to them and take a quote that Prabhupada made in the 60’s or 70’s and try to implement it without considering those factors? We have already seen that Prabhupada changed his opinion about application when he was here with us for those last 12 years. Is it possible that he would have continued to do that throughout the years if he was still with us today? I say it’s not only possible, it’s even more than highly likely.
Prabhupada made statements that it was okay to take milk in the contaminated state as it was then. Now that we can get organic milk that is free of antibiotics and fish oil, should we whip out a Prabhupada quote and declare it is okay drink the inferior milk?
Prabhupada’s books give us the ideal. In terms of application, we have to be sincere and expert enough to apply the eternal principles he gave us according to the now. Hopefully, we are grown up enough now to understand this and do it prudently according to the preaching spirit and utility that Prabhupada hoped for us. Otherwise, we look like fanatics to outsiders, blindly accepted a faith and not knowing how to apply it. Not only do we look like fanatics; we become them. Intelligent people are much more inclined to take a book from someone who appears reasonable.
Dear Gargamuni prabhu,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Hare Krishna.
As I mentioned previously, the science of criminal forensics has improved immensely since Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance, especially throught advancements in the utilization of DNA evidence. The improvements have been so great that several criminal prosecutions dating back several decades have been overturned based on DNA that has been retained.
That fact, which I don’t see how anyone can credibly dispute, greatly reduces the chance in contemporary trials of persons being condemned to death for crimes they did not commit. Your arguments would make sense to me if we could not have as much confidence in the courts compared to when Srila Prabhupada made his statements, but actually the opposite is true. A devotee of course should use his intelligence to apply the acaryas’ statements according to time, place, and circumstance, but when doing that one must be careful to not go against reason and logic. Especially if one comes to the opposite conclusion that the acarya has stated, it’s time to go back and check your math. Again my humble obeisances unto you, but I think you subtracted when you should have added.
Hare Krishna.
Sincerely, your servant,
Pandu das
Pandu Das you are using the claim that since there have been many cases, where due to modern forensics, people have been freed from death row, therefore you claim this shows an improvement of due process. But that also shows that there have been many more cases where an innocent person had been sentenced to death and were killed unjustly, and many more have been sentenced but won’t be freed. This is because of those who have been freed it has almost always been due to the works of NGO’s (non governmental agencies), who are limited in their resources and have to fight the system to get justice served. Prosecuters (many who later become judges and politicians) fight against those organizations because they do not want a black mark on their record. So inevitably the reality is that only a small fraction of wrongly convicted people are getting help in the U.S.
We must also understand that in the other countries where most of the death penalty cases are tried, the defendents are without that type of aid found in America. So when seen on a worldwide basis it can easily be shown that due to corruption and or political or religious reasons, a large percentage of people who do not deserve to be jailed, what to speak of being killed, are experiencing that fate.
You want to use Srila Prabhupada’s endorsement of capital punishment as some type of divine mandate that cannot be questioned as applicable in all times and places. That is your right if you want to do that. But I question the qualification of a person who makes such a claim as to his ability to speak for Srila Prabhupada. By claiming to be giving Srila Prabhupada’s conclusion on this topic, you are in effect claiming to be speaking as the mouthpiece for God on this topic. If it can be clearly shown that capital punishment as currently practiced is being enacted adharmically on a consistent basis, then in effect you are claiming that God is promoting adharma in the name of dharma, through your claim as being the mouthpiece for Srila Prabhupada on this topic.
Dear prabhus,
I mentioned in my comment that we must say yes to the death penalty on condition that all prerequisite values fall in place. Failing this, then to put a person to death based on preverse judicial ways is questionable. However, some devotees are trying to balance the reality on the ground with Srila Prabhupada’s verdict on the matter, which in the ideal world means yes.
We are in fact living in a Sastrically outlawed society in which the law general favors the rich and powerful, and those who promote anti-Vedic values. Of course, karma will act upon people irregardless of affiliation and purpose, and will undoubtedly influence matters of injustice. Just imagine, a child killer dies then takes birth as a cute, beautiful adorable child admired by one and all. Then the child(child killer) gets his come uppence, and is killed the same way. Karma does the most improbable, implausible and incomprehensible things defying decent human values, yet it is the will of evil desires to make such things happen.
In the absence of a just Vedic situation, nature’s death penalty will act nonetheless, which causes people to wonder whether a God exists or not. Amid all this mayhem, or what Srila Prabhupada calls ‘pandemonium,’ the best we can do is try to give knowledge of Krishna.
But to present a cohesive front in regards to the death penalty, we already have varying opinions expressed so far about this issue, which doesn’t bode well for a unified front. But then, at least the public will see the healthy differences and admire us for being able to think according to our convictions, rather than be unthinking brainwashed zombies incapable of formulating opinions. But this does not really solve the potential ‘PR’ problem.
Whatever I say on the matter may get rebuffed by someone else and so forth. So is there any recourse, except to give a balanced statement? I think that whomever we speak to about the death penalty and related issues, we speak with a sincerety befitting our level of Krishna consciousness. Just as Srila Prabhupada could vary his responses on a given topic, so can we. And the beauty of preaching is, one can convince a seeker of truth from any angle of vision and still penetrate the heart of the listener.
This is real indepence of thought in action.
Ys, Kesava Krsna dasa.
The opposite may be true in terms of the technology; but how they use the technology may be a different story. It’s not obvious to me that Prabhupada said the death penalty should be applied to the government as it was when Prabhupada made his statements. It may have been said contingent on an assumption of guilt on the part of the convicted. As far as I know, Prabhupada was making the point that the death penalty is beneficial for the criminal because it absolves his sins.
If it was pointed out to Srila Prabhupada that people are often wrongly convicted he may have qualified his statements.
To me, this is not a question of “following the acarya” or not here. It is a question of understanding what he said in the proper context, and trying to see how to apply what he said then to the present day.
Aside from that, just because the forensic science has increased doesn’t mean that people are still not wrongly convicted and sentenced. One may argue that juries are perhaps more sentimental and biased these days than ever before. To me this is not one of those cut and dry issues that we can package up neatly by saying, “I’m following the Acarya on this one and you’re not.”
Dear Vaishnavas!
PAMHO! AgtSP!
1.There is no question: are we for, or against death penalty. ISKCON is build on sastra, sadhu and guru.
So relying solely on Srila Prabhupada quotes is not a proper process – those quotes has to be supported by other quotes from sastra (such as Bhagavata Purana or Manu Samhita) and opinion of a live guru, which is sincerely following Srila Prabhupada.
Our laws are Vedic law and are described in details in Manu Samhita and interpretations of those laws are Srila Prabhupadas commentaries in his books. So anybody truthfully identifying himself with ISKCON automatically is for capital punishment – we are not making up our opinions, we heve to follow opinions of sastra, sadhu and guru. As in modern days there is a strong tendency in politics to delegalize death penalty worldwide, the question really means: are we for death penalty to remain as a possibility of punishing criminals, not: are we for death penalty to be apply in every case of murder or such.
We have to be conscious of a fact that opposition to death penalty is a direct consequence of philosophies of materialism and exclusivism of humans. No person understanding the laws of
karma will be against capital punishment in extreme cases, such as – for example -a child homicide by sexual predator. Also very often a murderer who is not executed, but sentenced to life in prison, commits another murder in jail on other inmates, not neccesarely as bad as him, on prisoners sentanced for theft and such. The role of government and its members (such as judges) is to protect its citizens, including prisoners, not to wash hands from responcibility and move it forward – as often happens in cases of child predators and child murderers are killed in prison by other prisoners.In other words justice is done and executed by unauthorised persons, while authorised ones are refusing to execute their duties in the name of modern day philosophical speculations.
2. “…that also shows that there have been many more cases where an innocent person had been sentenced to death and were killed unjustly…”No, thats not a truth. There is no even one case in Western Democracies (such as USA, Canada, Australia and EU) that innocent person was executed. Althou parties who are against death penalty often saying that innocent people was executed in past, still they fail to produce example. Also, if such a case exist, it can not be use as an excuse to abolish death penalty.
It is like trying to delegalize driving cars, because they cause death of innocent peoples. You not delegalize driving than – you regulate it according to time, place and circumstances to minimize or eliminate accidents. Similarly with capital punishment – you do not delegalize it, you only regulate its application according to kala, desa and patra.
We have right to adjust application of principle, but we do not have right to change the principle itself.
So, if anybody ask ISKCON devotee,the correct answer is yes, we are for death penalty.
Although I wouldn’t presume to know just what Srila Prabhupada was thinking at various times, I still feel quite confident that he would have considered the fact that the judicial process sometimes involves corruption or other forms of cheating, that even eye-witnesses may not see what really happened (imperfect senses), and that that folks may misunderstand the situation to take one thing as something else (be illusioned), and that ultimately juries will sometimes reach the wrong conclusion (commit mistakes). None the less, he spoke in favor of the death penalty on several occasions; and I’m inclined to accept his statements at face value.
Of course, if we know for certain that a person did not commit a specific murder, then a death sentence would itself be murder. That goes without saying. But the present discussion concerns the law as it applies in a general sense, not to any specific case.
If the state is going to be barred from punishing a convicted murderer as if he were actually guilty, then why stop there? If we must doubt the jury’s conclusion, then we should also admit that any conviction can be a mistake. Shall we set all the prisoners free? Obviously it can get ridiculous, but why draw the line at capital punishment? Every moment lost is gone forever, not only with death. Tear down all the prisons then.
I’m going to try to refrain from discussing this anymore. Disagreeing with devotees makes me feel ill.
Hare Krishna.
Undoubtedly there are many reasons, philosophical and pragmatic, why the death penalty is necessary within human society.
I ask those who favor abolishment of capital punishment:
Has any authorized representative of the Supreme Lord authorized anyone on this planet to eradicate the death penalty?
(Since capital punishment is an aspect of divine judiciary, why would any fallible human, be he even a Vaisnava, opine that capital punishment should be eliminated from human society?)
The notion to abolish the death penalty is hereby sentenced to death!
I don’t believe anyone is questioning the validity of proper use of the death penalty here. That’s not the point. Prabhupada said that people today cannot touch the Manu Samhita, known as the law-book of mankind. Why is that? Is it only because of the inability to follow the laws, or could it also have something to do with the inability of the state to properly administer them? There are many heavy punishments prescribed in that book. In a purport (Bg. 2.22)Prabhupada lists the six kind of offenses in which one should be killed immediately, and he says specifically there is no sin accrued to those who carry out the killing. Does that mean as practicing Vaishnavas today we should kill a person who steals from us or has an affair with our wife? I know a devotee who actually killed another devotee who was having an affair with his wife. I asked him if Prabhupada found out about it. “Yes,” he said. “How did he respond?” I asked “He said that I committed a great blunder,” the devotee said. Well, if you go by what is said in that purport (which was written without qualification for time, place and circumstance) you may conclude that the devotee was following his spiritual master. But the fact is, he wasn’t. Prabhupada said he committed a great blunder. So my point here is just because Prabhupada says something in his books, i.e. pro capital punishment, doesn’t mean we as his followers should interpret it as a hard and fast instruction for all time, place and circumstance. We have to understand the context of its application. As I said before, this issue and how to apply it is not as black and white as it seems.
In fact, in that very same purport Prabhupada says, “Similarly, violence also has its utility, and how to apply violence rests with the person in knowledge.”
Does this sound like an endorsement for all time, place and circumstance for capital punishment? Obviously, Prabhupada says here that a person in knowledge (in other words an educated, incorruptible person), can reason when to apply capital punishment. So the question arises, to who does this apply? Does this include present day judges? What would Prabhupada say if he knew of their corruptibility and all the false convictions that have been handed down? Are these people really in knowledge and responsible enough to deal with the application of violence? Perhaps one day, maybe in a country like Kazakhstan, where some say devotees are currently being persecuted, devotees could be put to death for crimes they did not commit. Would you say yes for capital punishment then because Prabhupada didn’t mention that situation? Where do you draw the line? You have to make a judgement sometime Prabhus.
That brings up another point, in reference to Guru Krishna’s question, “Has any authorized representative of the Supreme Lord authorized anyone on this planet to eradicate the death penalty?” I would say, are not the opinions of the Vaishnavas valid here also? Aren’t the Vaisnavas authorized representatives of the Lord? I’m not saying that any contemporary Vaisnava is on Srila Prabhupada’s level by any means, but doesn’t their opinion matter on how to apply principles of Krishna consciousness in the times in which they live? Or are we a bunch of mindless babies who repeat what our father or grand father says out of context, or without thoroughly considering the situation at hand? Is every issue so cut and dry that you can pull out a Prabhupada quote and claim to know what he would say today about a specific situation? Personally, I think not.
Srila Prabhupada often wrote about matters of public policy and administration, always of course with an emphasis on Krishna consciousness. This was especially true in the pre-ISKCON “Back to Godhead”, but also in his ISKCON pastimes he often met with public officials and suggested to them how Krishna consciousness could solve material problems like crime and drug addiction. And of course he wrote extensively about the principles of spiritual civilization and the role of government in maintaining such a civilization.
However, Srila Prabhupada never steered ISKCON into the fray of mundane political activism. Even the “In God We Trust” party with Balavanta and Amarendra was soon abandoned as a distraction from spiritual life. Running devotees for political office did not seem to do much good, either for the devotees or for society. (It might be different when the percentage of devotees in society becomes greater)
ISKCON is meant for something much higher than taking a public stand on political issues like the death penalty.
During the Vietnam War era, devotees went to peace vigils and protests to chant Hare Krishna and get the message of Krishna to large groups of people. However, ISKCON never became preoccupied with speaking out in favor of or against the War. We did not have an ISKCON-wide stand on the “Domino theory” or how best (or even whether) to contain Communism.
Our primary concern was never with public policy. We talk about public policy largely in connection with educating people about principles of spiritual life.
For those devotees who happen to be professional politicians or who work in government, they have to interact with nondevotees in a way that suits their situation. We cannot expect or demand a “one size fits all” political agenda for all devotees in public life.
I have a several non-devotee friends who applied for jobs in the California Attorney General’s office and had to answer questions regarding whether they could work on prosecuting capital cases and whether they had moral objections to the death penalty that would interfere with their duties in that regard.
Personally I do not think I would have a problem working in California’s AG’s office, or being a California judge who has to apply California’s death penalty laws and interpret them (including U.S. Federal constitutional limits), but I do not know that every devotee necessarily would answer that personal question the same way. There is no litmus test that you have to favor the death penalty as applied at this particular time and place or else you cannot be an ISKCON devotee.
ISKCON certainly should not take a public stand *against* the death penalty, as if there were some tenet of our philosophy against executing convicted murderers, kidnappers, arsonists and rapists. To do so would misrepresent Vedic teachings.
But why should ISKCON take a public stance in favor of the death penalty, either? People know so little about the Hare Krishna movement. We do not want them to get the impression that we are primarily some sort of political lobbyist group. That would give people the wrong idea of ISKCON’s purpose, message and essential character.
Those who oppose the death penalty would unnecessarily see us as political enemies. (Really we are trying to be their spiritual educators and mentors). Victim’s rights groups or others who lobby in favor of the death penalty might also misunderstand us or simply try to use us and distract us from our goals, or distort our public image.
ISKCON, at least at this stage of its development (and for the foreseeable future) is primarily a cultural or religious or philosophical phenomenon, not a participant on the stage of worldly politics. I do not expect devotees generally to vote as a block in U.S. elections, although maybe in the future or for local elections where the Hare Krishna vote matters someone might organize devotees politically in that way.
Even getting too involved with animal rights groups or anti-abortion groups is a distraction. While animal slaughter and abortion are terrible things, and we should say so, ISKCON has something much more important to do than work to change abortion laws and animal protection laws.
In fact, ISKCON’s work is more effective at solving social problems, not by changing laws, but by changing hearts. Changing laws without changing culture often accomplishes little.
ISKCON’s main concern is getting people to chant Hare Krishna. Changing specific public policies is not our priority. I am surprised that a reporter interviewing a devotee would even ask something about ISKCON’s stand on the death penalty, but if one does, the devotee being interviewed should be careful not to give the public the impression that ISKCON is like some kind of mundane political organization. Why should ISKCON be expected to have a “stand” on such things?
One thing is, though, that in the debate on penal theory, regarding retributive justice versus rehabilitation and so on, the idea that punishment by the state lessens the punishment by nature under the laws of karma is an important idea that is totally absent in western Philosphy. Devotees could contribute to this philosphical discourse. [I think devotee ethical philosophers generally will tend to be more deontological, like Kant, rather than utilitarian like Bentham or Mill.]
However, while lessening the karmic reaction of criminals is a good, interesting philosophical point to make, it might not necessarily be suited for a TV interview. The reporter is likely to misunderstand, and the editors are likey to mangle what a devotee says.
It is difficult to impress a TV audience with complex philosophy. TV news shows generally give little sound bites best suited for conveying more general impressions, and it is best to stick to the primary message: “People are suffering from forgetfuness of God; reawakening our love of God will solve the world’s problems, both individually and collectively; the authorized, effective method for reawakening our love of God is to chant His holy names, especially the mantra, Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare.”
I have found this passage in the purports of Srila Prabhupada.
“Although the justice of the peace awards capital punishment to a person condemned for murder, the justice of the peace cannot be blamed, because he orders violence to another person according to the codes of justice. In Manu-samhita, the lawbook for mankind, it is supported that a murderer should be condemned to death so that in his next life he will not have to suffer for the great sin he has committed. Therefore, the king’s punishment of hanging a murderer is actually beneficial. ”
Bhagavad Gita As It Is 2.21, Purport by Srila Prabhupada
Wouldn’t someone receiving the death penalty get a better birth in their next life?
I don’t know of torture being authorized by sastra at any time.
Another question is guilt. Is there adequate proof that someone committed a crime such as murder?
If the death penalty is to be passed, then does the prisoner have sufficient opportunity and facility to get themselves right with God before the end?
Dealing with criminals is normally the business of the government. According to what Srila Prabhupada is stating, the government has the right to sentence a prisoner to the death penalty if it is proven they are guilty of murder.
Of course, those in the holy order may want to forgive everyone even the murderer.