Corresponding Effects

2004-2-7 15:41:00

Geoffrey writes:
In which way is it worse? I expect it is more pleasant to die quickly than to spend the rest of your life in prison. Are we talking of pleasantries of the personality or are we talking of advancement of the spirit? I am sure that the time in prison would pay back karma quicker than dying, we all have to die, and it gives time to the person to take stock of his life.

JJ:
The trouble with using time in prison as punishment for murder is that the punishment does not correspond to the crime. Life in prison may be justice for the deviate who keeps his kid locked in his room for many years, but it is not a compliment to the crime of murder.

It does provide some elementary reflection, often interrupted by rape, beatings etc. As far as reflection goes nothing beats the time in between lives. There the reflection is much more efficient and accurate than life in prison.

Prison time does not pay off the crime of murder because it does not teach the murderer what the victim felt like. In fact, the prisoner often becomes even more hardened to the victims feelings and will have an even greater distance to attain the required empathy that must be acquired by all as we proceed along the path.

This is why the murderer must experience for himself the feelings of his victim so he will have the empathy to not commit the crime again. Placing a man in prison for a lifetime merely delays this experience and this delays his progression. If he is speedily put to death by the state then his soul will judge as to whether he has learned the required empathy so he will not murder again. If not, his soul will then arrange some unique situation in a future life where he will either learn or take the left hand path.

Geoff:
Who and when does one forgive a murderer? Before they are hung? After they are hung? Before the life sentence or after the life sentence? Are we in a position to forgive, who does the forgiving?

JJ:
That was my point. Only the victim can forgive. As far as the state goes it only administers justice, not forgiveness. The state does not hold a grievance.

Many, however, say we should not have the death penalty because the state should forgive, but my point was the state is not in the business of forgiveness. Forgiveness is an individual thing.

BUT if the state were supposed to forgive then it would have to forgive all, even the prison sentence.

Geoff:
Yes, God carried out the sentence, not man. He has the right to but we do not.

JJ:
The power of God was used, but Peter made the judgment and executed it. It is as the scripture says:

"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Gen 9:6

It doesn't say that God will take the murderer's life, but that "man" will.

If man has the right to take a life by condemning a man to prison for the length of his days then why would he not have the right take his life by execution? What is the difference? None except the life in prison is much more cruel.

Geoff:
He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. This includes the society that punishes by the sword.

JJ:
It is true that a society or nation is subject to the laws of karma just as is the individual, but to see how this is played out we must look at the principle itself.

A cause creates a similar effect, not a different effect.

Hitler was an example of one who lived by the sword of injustice for he sought to exterminate the Jews and as it turned out the Jews are still alive and flourishing, but the Nazis wound up being the ones who were almost obliterated.

DK tells us that taking a life is not counted as murder if it is done in defense of the innocent.

If the state then executes a murderer as justice to the innocent victim as well as to protect other innocents from murder what will be the effect related to this cause?

One who supports this process but is otherwise innocent will not come back and be killed with the sword. This would be a corresponding effect not related to cause. The effect instead would be twofold :

(1) If such a supporter commits murder then he would be put to death by the state. If be does not commit murder then he will not be effected.
(2) He who supports such a punishment will gravitate to a society in future lives where this justice is in play.

On the other hand, he who is against the death penalty will gravitate to be born within a state where there is no death penalty and if he commits murder or accused of it he will suffer life in prison rather than execution.

Eventually through experience we will all learn where true fairness and justice lie. Only by seeing the effects in the world and out of the world can one have sure understanding.

Interestingly, the main thing the murderer usually learns through a life in prison is that a speedy execution would have been the preferable punishment. He will especially be aware of this after death when he can review the whole picture.

There is a time and place for everything and because of diverse circumstances there are exceptions to every rule, but when dealing with law (which is black and white) if we have justice 90% of the time we are doing pretty good. When society becomes enlightened laws will take second place living justice and judgment.

"Man must go back in memory, seek for and destroy the causes of evil, however far back they lie. This going into the past and replaying a scene of the past in imagination as it ought to have been played the first time, I call revision."
Neville

I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I don't know the future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it's going to begin. Neo - The Matrix