Jump to content

Death For Death?


Guest SScom
 Share


Recommended Posts

VJKK VJKF

However you put it - life for a life? life for a death? death for death? death for life?

Following the Bradford, UK shootings very recently, where a police officer was shot dead during an armed robbery, there have been calls to bring back the death penalty for anyone who shoots a police officer.

What do you think? Is the death penalty a good idea? What does Gurmat teach us about this? Should life imprisonment MEAN life imprisonment, or is 20years long enough? Does the prospect of going to jail not deter criminals, rapists, murderers anymore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The death penalty is the easy way out

136027[/snapback]

For an innocent GurMukh - yes it is - for a Sant Sipahee of the Panth who is dying for Dharam to become Shaheed - yes it is - a GurSikh who does not fear death, remember, does not die...

...but on the other hand, for a ManMukh who may be guilty, it is NOT the easy way out, as for them it REALLY IS death, and they will get questioned by Dharam Raj and be punished in a form of hell and then once again sent back into the cycle of birth and death!

The death penalty is in no way an easy way out for the guilty ManMukh, it is the beggining of a REAL punishment for the soul, not the mere body.

d_oh.gifVaheguroo Jee Kaa Khalsa, Vaheguroo Jee Kee Phateh!!! d_oh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont htink a Sikh can give a death for death policy in this case. Theres a fine line if you think about it. If we look to GUru nanak Dev Jee Mahraj and how he went to SUJJAN THUG house and changed him from a man off evil to a man of god.

It all depends on the situation but i think one should give the chance for the person to change. I agree with sony thats a valid fact who knows how many people are truely sentenced even though they are not guilty of anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if somebody is trying to kill another person, it is acceptable to kill that person if necessary to save the other person but if the person has already been killed its a different story. Now that we have prisons to insure that that the person wont come back and kill again, I think we dont need the death penalty. We need to let them live, and let them think about what they did.

Fateh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you lock a murderer up for 20 years then keeping him/her locked up is going to require public funds. There is no point in locking up a person unless there is some sort of rehebilitation plan in place. Having said that, death penalty can work as a deterant and it should only be given in extreme cases and where there is no doubt about the person's guilt. i.e. Terrorist bombings.

Given the chance anyone can change, as Rsingh pointed out Bhumiya chor, sajjan thug, koda the cannibal etc, so its all very complecated wacko.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrant to crime. the USA which still uses the death penalty and has a staggering prison population of 2 million is a good example of that.

furthemore not everyone who is convicted of a crime is definately guilty i.e birmingham six..

and putting someone to death isn't going to bring the victim back so incarceration and rehabilitation is the key for serious offenders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • was researching this and came back to this thread. Also found an older thread:    
    • Net pay after taxes. If you don't agree, think about this: If you were a trader and started off in China with silk that cost 100 rupees and came to India, and you had to pay total 800 rupees taxes at every small kingdom along the way, and then sold your goods for 1000 rupees, you'd have 100 rupees left, right? If your daswandh is on the gross, that's 100 rupees, meaning you have nothing left. Obviously, you owe only 10% of 100, not 10% of 1000. No, it's 10% before bills and other expenses. These expenses are not your expenses to earn money. They are consumption. If you are a business owner, you take out all expenses, including rent, shop electricity, cost of goods sold, advertising, and government taxes. Whatever is left is your profit and you owe 10% of that.  If you are an employee, you are also entitled to deduct the cost of earning money. That would be government taxes. Everything else is consumption.    
    • No, bro, it's simply not true that no one talks about Simran. Where did you hear that? Swingdon? The entire Sikh world talks about doing Simran, whether it's Maskeen ji, Giani Pinderpal Singh, Giani Kulwant Singh Jawaddi, or Sants. So what are you talking about? Agreed. Agreed. Well, if every bani were exactly the same, then why would Guru ji even write anything after writing Japji Sahib? We should all enjoy all the banis. No, Gurbani tells you to do Simran, but it's not just "the manual". Gurbani itself also has cleansing powers. I'm not saying not to do Simran. Do it. But Gurbani is not merely "the manual". Reading and singing Gurbani is spiritually helpful: ਪ੍ਰਭ ਬਾਣੀ ਸਬਦੁ ਸੁਭਾਖਿਆ ॥  ਗਾਵਹੁ ਸੁਣਹੁ ਪੜਹੁ ਨਿਤ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰ ਪੂਰੈ ਤੂ ਰਾਖਿਆ ॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ The Lord's Bani and the words are the best utterances. Ever sing hear and recite them, O brother and the Perfect Guru shall save thee. Pause. p611 Here Guru ji shows the importance of both Bani and Naam: ਆਇਓ ਸੁਨਨ ਪੜਨ ਕਉ ਬਾਣੀ ॥ ਨਾਮੁ ਵਿਸਾਰਿ ਲਗਹਿ ਅਨ ਲਾਲਚਿ ਬਿਰਥਾ ਜਨਮੁ ਪਰਾਣੀ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ The mortal has come to hear and utter Bani. Forgetting the Name thou attached thyself to other desires. Vain is thy life, O mortal. Pause. p1219 Are there any house manuals that say to read and sing the house manual?
    • All of these are suppositions, bro. Linguists know that, generally, all the social classes of a physical area speak the same language, though some classes may use more advanced vocabulary. I'm talking about the syntax. That is, unless the King is an invader, which Porus was not. When you say Punjabi wasn't very evolved, what do you mean? The syntax must have been roughly the same. As for vocabulary, do you really think Punjabis at the time did nothing more than grunt to express their thoughts? That they had no shades of meaning? Such as hot/cold, red/yellow/blue, angry/sweet/loving/sad, etc? Why must we always have an inferiority complex?
    • I still think about that incident now and then, just haven't heard any developments regarding what happened, just like so many other things that have happened in Panjab!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use