Jedi Believe, death penalty section

"In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment, including the death penalty."

I wonder if the inclusion of the death penalty here is right. Surely we have members who believe that some extreme actions, such as war, are at times necessary -- there have actually been a few discussions about war, specifically, recently -- and as far as I can tell, war can be effectively a death sentence, in some cases only due to nation of origin, another thing brought up in the "Jedi Believe" section of the doctrine.
I have personally known very mentally imbalanced people who were an apparently incurable danger to themselves and others, and had to be put away for life due to their actions and the threat that they posed to those around them. We reject cruel punishment and torture, but isn't a life behind bars or confined to a straightjacket torture in itself? A reformation of the prison system and more effective methods of dealing with mental illness are ideals, yes, but for a long time they have just been ideals. The mental health community has tried and failed time and time again despite their best efforts to help, but it's an unfortunate fact that they haven't been able to help everyone and sometimes prison or other forms of institutionalization are necessary. And if we were to make life better and more free in the prison system, where many mentally ill people are unfortunately placed, they could present a danger to the other prisoners around them.
Is it not more humane to prevent those endless hours of suffering? With no other reasonable alternatives currently available to us, the choices in life-or-death sentences seem to be either supporting cruel treatment or supporting a death penalty. How can we stand against both when they are the only options available to us?

Having seen this part of the doctrine more than a few times, it's started to bother me, so I'd like some input.

just one of several issues I had with the Doctrine I believe in the death penalty when the punishment matches the crime (The Doctrine speaks of Justice as well )

This is why I feel Doctrines and Jedi should avoid adding anything political into their codes and doctrines. We should only focus on our own personal goals and path....not hint at our political views as, political views will vary dependent on the local laws (Which Jedi are supposed to defend when just), culture, and joining religions.

I agree to the belief that there is no evil people, the are evil acts, so you must not hate the person, but despise the act itself. Everybody is capable to do bad and good things, so it's not fair to end a person's life, as he is still capable of goodness. As for the mentally ill, confinement may be admissible as a measure to keep that person from hurting himself or other people, as long as the right care is provided.

Strangely I don't think the justice system is meant to give justice to the victim or punish the criminal, but rather to provide some degree of protection to the society that system serves. The human element though is viewed most easily from those points of views, victim & criminal, but I think its a distortion of how the system might actually work, or perhaps best works... IMO.

So to kill!? Unfortunately I'm not sure its cheaper to kill a death row prisoner, as it might have higher legal costs associated with going that extra mile.... so I'm not sure in the benefit of the death penalty. It wouldn't be the worse punishment in my eyes either, as I'd imagine it would be worse to be punished for life. So what does it achieve, except a feeling of revenge for the victims. I don't think the system should be about revenge.

The risk in a life of punishment is that a person can alter their perception, so that even punishment can be perceived as something approaching, sometimes even including, pleasure. We might call it insanity, but it might well stop being a punishment from the point of view of the criminal. In which case it is no longer suitable obviously. That then unfortunately leads to torture itself, which is for intents and purposes efforts to ensure a continued stated of suffering for some effect - an active awareness of the suffering and the intent to increase it - my definition of evil, and not acceptable IMO.

Therefore all that considered, I reckon that separation of the prisoner from society, and its benefits, achieve the primary goal of protecting society, while also limiting the costs to keep the prisoner to the minimum standards as much as possible. Just my opinion though, but I think it does sort of mesh into that part of the doctrine.

Obviously though not all prisoners are in for life, and so there is different types of incarceration to include the rehabilitation potential of less serious offenders. The difference being, at some point the decision is made about whether the person can return to society safely, or whether it even matters!!!

Adder wrote: I don't think the system should be about revenge.

I don't really see it as a matter of revenge. Why should I have to pay taxes taking food out of my family and friends mouths and hearth to feed, cloth, shelter and drug up these insane killers?

Just my thoughts

When we don't understand something do we kill ourselves? No, we contemplate, meditate and articulate what we discover. (Yes it rhymes ) It is through that focus that we gain knowledge and we pass on that wisdom to others.

If we kill a killer, how will he understand why it is wrong to kill? And what wisdom will we pass onto others? That killing is the answer? I'd rather see a killer spend his days in jail, getting three meals a day with only one question on his/her mind. "Why is it wrong to kill?". He/She will be kept away from other potential victims and nobody else will get hurt. Losing his/her freedom will be warning to others and we will learn that killing is not the answer.

Now with war, if it is in self defense then it's not an issue. If it is in offense, like invading a foreign land for no reason, any deaths that result are murder. As a soldiers job is to follow orders, it is the person who gave the order the first time that is responsible.

May the Force be with you

Kitsu Tails wrote: Why should I have to pay taxes taking food out of my family and friends mouths and hearth to feed, cloth, shelter and drug up these insane killers?

I don't think that's how taxes work.

Adder wrote: Strangely I don't think the justice system is meant to give justice to the victim or punish the criminal, but rather to provide some degree of protection to the society that system serves.

I see it the same way - and as such, putting someone to death has no advantage over jailing someone for life. Putting someone to death makes someone / an additional person a murderer (the executioner). Even though he or she might have state absolution, the moral aspect of it is devastating. There's also little evidence that putting someone to death offers more in terms of retribution towards the friends and family of the victim over, say, life in prison. It isn't more cost effective, either in the case of the US. It's much more cost-effective in cases like Iran, where people are sometimes hanged the day after their conviction - but I think due process is a necessity.

but of course, I'm European and approval of the death penalty is very low here - I've never quite warmed to the idea of the state-sponsored killing of criminals

Adder wrote: putting someone to death has no advantage over jailing someone for life

Jailing someone for life make no sense. The point of imprisonment is rehabilitation .

Ion Eldor wrote:

Adder wrote: putting someone to death has no advantage over jailing someone for life

Jailing someone for life make no sense. The point of imprisonment is rehabilitation .

Good argument, but it doesn't change that as punishment, it's cheaper and morally less of a problem than the death penalty.