Am I allowed to call myself a Jedi in this Temple if I...?

I think you should. Some people are so devious, they deserve the death penalty.

I think you should. Some people are so devious, they deserve the death penalty.

Real estate agents, for example.

Persi_Stance wrote: I believe in the death penalty for those who have proven over repeat chances that they are irredeemable or who commit atrocities too heinous to be allowed to be a part of society.

Should I abandon the Jedi Path, just leave this Temple, or am I okay to stay and study here?

I've been away for a while to try to find my own answer to this dilemma, but I can't bring myself to think differently about this.

Your not just asking one question here from my understanding. I don't agree with your belief in the death penalty, but I did at one point.
I don't think based on that you should abandon your path or leave this Temple. Maybe part of what you choose to study here could be an in depth look at the death penalty and alternatives to it. Giving yourself a larger awareness of the issue and educating yourself. To me its never a waste to look at your beliefs and maybe learn something new,a different perspective.
I always thought everyone was free to stay here and study wether they call themselves Jedi or not. So I personally don't see a problem with this.
If you can't find a different way of looking at this then maybe make a forum post to discuss, but I would only do so if you are ready to listen to other peoples thoughts on the issue?

I remember your name and hope you find a way to do what you wish.
Welcome back

JamesSand wrote:

I deeply believe the greater sin in the case of being in the jury would be leaving the unquestionably guilty serial killer alive to kill only more people than his one life is worth.

Just for own my interests - are you suggesting the death "penalty" is appropriate as a response to what someone has already done, or what they might do in the future?

Sort of both.

I believe it would be unfounded to kill someone who only killed once without giving them a chance at redemption. I also believe it would be unfounded to kill someone who was seen to kill someone by a future revealer even if the method in question is usually or even always right.

I believe taking a life is necessary when it is done to someone who has proven that they are not interested in redemption, who is so undeniably vile that their actions would contradict when they say they want to change. There's a point where it doesn't add up to let those who are incapable of goodness go free, and there is a point where that incapability is undisguisable.

I believe taking a life is necessary when it is done to someone who has proven that they are not interested in redemption, who is so undeniably vile that their actions would contradict when they say they want to change. There's a point where it doesn't add up to let those who are incapable of goodness go free, and there is a point where that incapability is undisguisable.

Why would they go free? Life without parole means they never get out of prison. Someone sentenced to death routinely spends 20 or more years in prison before being executed. If they can be held securely for that long, why can't they be held until they die? 25% of Death Row inmates die before they're executed now.

Life is sacred. But take ones life is not ours to take or we ourselves are murderers. Let them sit in prison and study and reflect on their wrongs in life and hope they’ve converted and repented their ways...killing them teaches nothing the dark side...they’ll not learn anything from this.

Killing for vengeance, even in the name of justice, is killing out of hate, born from fear and anger, which makes one no better than the offender, and is, as we all know, a path to the Dark Side.

You drop down to the offender's level if you abandon mercy.

Killing could be acceptable in self-defense, but only in the direst of circumstances.

If the offender is already incapacitated or captured, then executing them in cold-blood is unacceptable.

I want to weigh in here. I agree that some crimes are worthy of death. There are some things that you can do that the only repayment is as permanent as the scares you leave from your crime.

However, the justice system is run by humans. Verdicts and trials are judged and given by humans. Humans are flawed. As such a permanent punishment that cannot be undone is not ethical. The risk of an innocent person's death far out weights any cost of the guilty sitting behind bars for life.

We can fix life in prison to some extent by paying large sums of money to " make whole " an innocent party that we jailed. But we cannot fix death. As such I do not think it the proper stance of a Jedi to advocate for granting the state the power to end your life outside of self defense or defense of others.

To enact the death penalty on one based upon your belief of what they may do in the future is a dangerous path to tread. Fear of one can lead to prejudice and lack of faith, if you have not faith in a fellow human being due to your own internal distrust than do you not lack the fundamental beliefs of a Jedi? One must be able to set aside fear and act upon only those instincts necessary to maintain harmony. Just as one can be swayed by fear, leading them to act out against those deemed evil, one who is believed to be evil is likely driven by the same conflicts aforementioned; to believe that one is beyond the realm of redemption could be argued falls into the darkness of dealing in absolutes. While I will not argue with the idea of escalation in the face of growing indiscretions, as such may be necessary to maintain order amongst the masses, I would far further suggest tighter means of control and oversight before one is put to death.

Thank you for posting this, OP. This is a question I took into account before registering, yet will not be an obstacle to me applying to be a member and working through the path. I'll begin my response by paraphrasing what my late grandfather used to tell me regarding capital punishment: "If we hadn't hung horse thieves, this country would've never gotten west of the Mississippi."

For context, I was born, raised in, and reside in, the United States. My grandfather's words are in reference to the country's westward expansion. In those days, if someone's horse (or anything they depended upon for their daily lives) was stolen, their livelihood was stolen, and it was viewed as equal to severely damaging (or even taking) the theft victim's life. However, it's also said that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

In theory, I support the existence of capital punishment. I think it should be an option to use for what I consider the most heinous of criminals who take or damage multiple lives. I consider these crimes to be:

• mass murder
• serial murder
• serial sex offenders (think child molestation, human trafficking, etc.)
• serial rape
• terrorist acts where multiple lives are claimed or multiple people are severely maimed
• treason where the traitor's actions genuinely put the lives of their countrymen at risk

However, other commenters have raised the issue of executing the innocent, keeping the condemned for many many years before execution, etc. The criminal justice system has absolutely unfair elements to it.

In conclusion, I think so long as the penalty is applied fairly, I think it should be a hypothetical sanction available (as a last resort!) for use by a legitimate and fair authority. As a man raised to be a soldier, I believe those with the capacity and authority to use force should be prepared to "take a life to save a life" or ideally, take a life to save many others.