Crime
and Proportionate Punishment
Damian J. Anderson
<damian@unification.net> writes:
> One of the chief justifications of
government is that it should
> preserve law and order, protect the
innocent, and punish criminals.
> Judgments must be made with great
care, in order not to mistakenly
> punish innocent people. The judge
should not be partial, but should
> treat everyone with an equal eye.
Many texts enjoin the authorities
> to be compassionate and prescribe
lenient punishments for minor
> infractions. Punishment should not
be prescribed from a vengeful
> motivation, but always with the
prisoner's welfare as well as the
> welfare of society in mind.
> Punishment serves as a deterrent to
crime and a shield for the
> innocent. In theistic traditions, the
government in meting out
> punishments is a co-worker with
God, who is the final dispenser of
> justice. In the Hindu and Buddhist
traditions, the justice
> dispensed by the government
manifests the fruits of karma on the
> earth: justice on earth corresponds
to the absolute justice of the
> cosmos through the operation of
karma. Furthermore, since by
> committing crimes the criminal
burdens himself with demerit, which,
> if not purged by punishment in this
life, burdens him in a future
> life, punishment helps him by
reducing the quantity of evil karma
> which he will have to expiate in
the future. Thus a government that
> vigorously prosecutes and punishes
criminals upholds righteousness
> both in the present, by
distinguishing good from evil in the eyes
> of the people, and in the future,
by reducing the quantity of evil
> karma to be inherited by later
generations.
> Finally, an important purpose of
punishment is rehabilitation. To
> be effective as a force for
rehabilitation and renovation,
> punishment should elicit sincere
repentance. The repentant
> criminal, by willingly accepting
his punishment, is forgiven by God
> and inherits future blessings.
> "A sovereign should not
inflict excessive punishment, nor
> should he use harsh words and speak
ill of anyone at his back."
>
-- Matsya Purana 220.10
> "Let the king exert himself to
the utmost to punish thieves; for,
> if he punishes thieves, his fame
grows and his kingdom prospers.
> A king who thus protects his
subjects receives from each and all
> the sixth part of their spiritual
merit; if he does not protect
> them, the sixth part of their
demerit also will fall on him.
> "A king who protects created
beings in accordance with the sacred
> law and smites those worthy of
corporal punishment, [it is as
> though he] daily offers sacrifices
at which hundreds of thousands
> are given as fees.
> "A king who does not afford
protection, yet takes his share in kind,
> his taxes, tolls and duties, daily
presents and fines, will soon
> sink into hell."
>
-- Laws of Manu 8.302-07
> "Punishment alone governs all
created beings, punishment alone
> protects them, punishment watches
over them while they sleep; the
> wise declare punishment to be the
law.
> "If punishment is properly
inflicted after due consideration, it
> makes all people happy; but
inflicted without consideration, it
> destroys everything.
> "If the ruler did not, without
tiring, inflict punishment on those
> worthy to be punished, the stronger
would roast the weaker, like
> fish on a spit.
> "All barriers would be broken
through, and all men would rage
> against each other in consequence
of mistakes with respect to
> punishment.
> "But where Punishment, with a
black hue and red eyes, stalks about,
> destroying sinners, there the
subjects are not disturbed, provided
> he who inflicts it discerns
well."
>
-- Laws of Manu 7.18-25
> "A thief shall, running,
approach the king, with flying hair,
> confessing that theft, saying,
'Thus I have done, punish me.'
> Whether he is punished or pardoned
[after confessing], the thief is
> freed from the guilt of theft; but
the king, if he punishes not,
> takes upon himself the guilt of the
thief."
>
-- Laws of Manu 8.314, 316
______________________________________________________________
It does seem as if most of these quotations, pulled from versions of
texts widely accepted in the Vaisnava
canon, apparently justify a spirit
of vengeance on the part of civil
authorities. The Matsya Purana text
cited does emphasise moderation, but the
predominant mood seems to be
something like punishing the guilty for
the sake of protecting those
who might otherwise be their victims. It
is hard to fault the apparent
reasonableness of all this, but we must
not become bloodthirsty.
In Norway the death penalty was ended over two generations ago when a
person sentenced to death was shown to
have been innocent of the crime of
which he had initially been convicted.
In Texas, however, one recent governor refused to commute the sentence
of a person who was definitely proven
innocent of the crime for which he
had been given the death penalty. No
appeals to reason would move this
governor, and the wretched prisoner was
wrongfully and deliberately
murdered by the state of Texas. This may
be a case of "punishment
inflicted
without consideration destroying
everything." And since the governor
failed
to protect this hapless person, a sixth
part of this fellow's demerits
will
also fall upon him. In this case, we
would expect that the post of U.S.
President will not be awarded to this
governor, despite his efforts to
outspend all other candidates.
Some groups like the ACLU and Amnesty International have demonstrated,
moreover, that the vast majority of
people in the United States who are
sentenced to death are poor and/or
black, and usually it is because
they had extremely inadequate legal
representation.
The United States now executes a higher proportion of people than
almost any other country on earth. The
United States also puts a larger
proportion of its citizens into prison
than most other countries on earth.
This is surely a land "where
Punishment stalks about, destroying sinners",
yet I would be most reluctant to claim
that the subjects (i.e., the U.S.
citizenry) are undisturbed.
What it means is that those who inflict the punishments, including
incarceration and capital punishment, do
not appear to be "discerning
well." What we should be seeing,
therefore, is a situation, in which "all
men would rage against each other in
consequence of mistakes with respect
to punishment."
Perhaps we need a different or supplementary set of dharma-sastras,
more suited to the current age, than
texts embodying such a spirit of
reactive vengeance tempered, apparently,
with little mercy and less
scope for rehabilitation.
With best regards,
Ananda das
(Text COM:2889480)
-----------------------------------------
Text COM:2892123 (67 lines) [W1]
From: (Bhakta) Sergei Schmalz (Wiesbaden - D)
Date: 29-Dec-99 13:49
To: Dharma Sastra Forum [40]
Reference: Text COM:2889480 by Ananda
(das) ACBSP (Victoria - CAN)
Subject: Crime and Proportionate Punishment
------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ananda Prabhu,
please accept my respectful obeisances.
All glories to Srila Prabhupada and all
other Vaisnavas!
All glories to Sri Sri Gaura-Nitai and
Sri Sri Radha-Govinda!
Thank
You very much for an interesting posting.
>
What it means is that those who inflict the punishments, including
> incarceration and capital
punishment, do not appear to be "discerning
> well." What we should be
seeing, therefore, is a situation, in which "all
> men would rage against each other
in consequence of mistakes with respect
> to punishment."
Some
time ago I posted the following text in the Quotes conference
about different kinds or grades of
punishment:
> Y€jñavalkya-smti
(1.367):
>
> dhig-daŠas
tv atha v€g-daŠo dhana-daŠo vadhas
tath€ /
> yojy€
vyast€ƒ samast€ v€ hy apar€dha-va€d
ime //
>
>
"A reprimand (like 'Shame upon you!'), verbal rebuke, a fine, and
> corporal punishment (including
death), these, either one or some of them,
> are to be dealt out to a criminal
in order to subdue crimes in the state."
>
> Manu-smti
(8.129) has quite the same verse, saying that first a
> reprimand is to be dealt out, if it
doesn't work, then the king goes
> further, until "it
works".
Here
we can note, it's chapter 8(!) of Manu-smrti, the same chapter
from which Mr. Damian J. Anderson quotes
(is he a full-time devotee at all?,
if not, I wouldn't trust him that much).
But he picks up those verses which
are suitable for his essay. He doesn't
depict complete picture. The point is
that one should study a sastric topic
considering as many verses as
possible, and not just by picking up a
few verses.
The
conclusion is that Mr. Damian J. Anderson's quotes like from
Manu-smrti 7.25 ("But where
Punishment, with a black hue and red eyes,
stalks about, destroying sinners, there
the subjects are not disturbed,
provided he who inflicts it discerns
well.") is rather the highest grade of
punishment applicable in the case with
bloody murderes & Co. and is not the
pattern for all cases. For other cases
there are other verses.
>
Perhaps we need a different or supplementary set of dharma-sastras,
> more suited to the current age,
than texts embodying such a spirit of
> reactive vengeance tempered,
apparently, with little mercy and less
> scope for rehabilitation.
True,
this is a difficult point. I know one verse in Parasara
Dharma-sastra which says something about
applicability of different
dharma-sastras in different yugas, but I
wouldn't quote it here so far, as
long as I haven't studied this issue
perfectly enough, otherwise it will be
a "half-hen" philosophy, as
they say in Germany. We may not speculate, we
should not make conclusions too fast, so
that the idea of "supplementary set
of dharma-sastras" should still
remain an open question...
Thank
You again for Your text, it was a good one. But for future, I
heartly advise everyone not to consult
materialists's works too much (e.g.
Muller's translation of Manu-smrti in
not strictly bona fide, in my humble
opinion), because they present
dharma-sastras not in the way they are
presented in the whole bulk of Vedic
scriptures. Sometimes I read their
works just only to know what sort of
nonsense they have now brought up
again. After reading I know with what
sort of arguments I can defeat them.
Your most unworthy servant,
Sergei.
Hare Krsna.
(Text COM:2892123)
-----------------------------------------
Text COM:2895443 (62 lines) [W1]
From: (Bhakta) Sergei Schmalz (Wiesbaden - D)
Date: 30-Dec-99 22:21
To: Dharma Sastra Forum [43]
Reference: Text COM:2893260 by Ananda
(das) ACBSP (Victoria - CAN)
Subject: Crime and Proportionate Punishment
------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ananda Prabhu and devotees,
please accept my respectful obeisances.
All glories to Srila Prabhupada and all
other Vaisnavas!
All glories to Sri Sri Gaura-Nitai and
Sri Sri Radha-Govinda!
>
I was interested to hear about the possible relative applicability of
> different dharma-sastras in
different ages; that may fit in well with
> "time, place and
circumstance" and with the idea that society makes
> progress. Also, not all types of
immorality that might be devised during
> Kaliyuga were perhaps foreseen at
the time the Vedic seers compiled these
> literatures. However, I do not wish
to speculate, and will certainly defer
> to your greater knowledge in these
areas.
Although
I wrote that I wouldn't like to mention those verses here
so far, but I am such a person who can't
say "No" to a devotee and refuse
him, when he asks me to do something.
So, I'll tell You now about the
verses, but I request all readers not to
"play" with them, because they are
just a few verses from a book, which is
just one book of all the
dharma-sastras, which are just a portion
of the whole Vedic literature; a
few verses require a lot of accuracy,
when interpreted.
The
whole information comes from Parasara-smrti, first chapter.
First
of all, in verse 22 Parasara Muni says that in all four yugas
there are different dharmas (varnasramic
dharmas), according to the "mood"
of respective yuga. This resembles very
much the fact that the Lord is
worshipped in different ways in
different yugas, e.g. by hari-nama-kirtana
in Kali-yuga, by dhyana in Satya, etc.
Then,
in verse 24 he says that in Satya-yuga the laws given by Manu
are to be applied, that is Manu-smrti,
in Treta-yuga - Gautama-smrti, in
Dvapara-yuga - Sankha- and Likhita-smrtis,
and in Kali-yuga - Parasara-smrti
itself.
I
didn't have sufficient time so far, to study these four types of
dharma-sastras in details, nor to
compare them, so that I can't explain the
difference of social laws given therein.
One
more interesting thing, although Parasara Muni "forbids" us,
people of Kali-yuga, to apply
dharma-sastras for previous yugas, like
Manu-smrti, still we find many Vaisnava
authorities quoting the same
Manu-smrti and many more dharma-sastras
on different occasions. The best
example would be Srila Sanatana Gosvami:
in his Hari-bhakti-vilasa he quotes
sooo many dharma-sastras; and Srila
Prabhupada also used to praise
Manu-smrti, I have already posted in
this conference almost all references
to Srila Prabhupada's quotes of
Manu-smrti, and we can see that.
So,
for me this issue is still to be discussed...
>
I also found it interesting that you referred to the
"half-hen"
> philosophy as being an idiom in
Germany. Do you mean to say that outside
> of ISKCON and other Indic-based
traditions, ordinary people use this
> phrase? This will be of interest to
scholars of cultural diffusion, who
> trace links, for example, from
Grimm's Kinder- und Haus-märchen back to
> Hitopadesa, etc., since Srila
Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur often used
> the example of ardha-kukkuti-nyaya,
the "parable of the moiety of the
> hen".
I
am not a native German speaker, I am from Russia. I learnt this
idiom from German ISKCON devotees (on
COM!). I guess there are some native
German devotees in this conference, they
know and can explain it better than
me. Anybody there with German as
mothertongue? Could You tell Ananda Prabhu
whether there is "half-hen"
nyaya (Halbe-Huhn-Philosophie) in pure German
culture? But, please, write that in
private letters to him only. :)
Your most unworthy servant,
Sergei.
Hare Krsna.
(Text COM:2895443)
-----------------------------------------