Peterson Death Penalty

[Guest Sony]

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!!

As some of you may have heard yesterday Peterson got the death sentance for the murder or Lacy, his wife and his unborn child, in California.

We have been having this discussion and have decided to ask the sangat's view on this topic. I know its a touchy topic but still would like to know your opinion. I am of the opinion that the Death Penalty is wrong. A number of reasons for this.

1. We as human beings should not have the right to decide if this person is insane enough to kill.

2. Death penalty should be changed to putting the criminal in jail until the day he dies. And he/she should know that they will can never get out.

My friend is not quick to say that the death penalty should be given, but he is of the belief that a person, say he has committed many many horrible crimes should be punished by death. Or dismembered in some way so that he rememebers for the rest of his life. However, i dont think human rights would allow this in Canada or the US

I beleive that the death penalty is an easy way out for these criminals. Look at Timothy McVeigh. He is not suffering, and he does not have to deal with what he did. lock them up in a little cell and leave them there for the rest of thier lives, then even if they dont feel remorse, the self pity will get to them.

What does Sikhi say about administering the death sentance?

pul chuk maaf

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!!

[Khalsa4ever]

vwihgurU jI kw Kwlsw!

vwihgurU jI kI &iqh!!

I don't think Sikhism advocated death sentences at all...

In every case during our Gurus' time, if someone, even on the battlefield apologized for their actions, Guru sahib forgave them (regardless of what they have done, or how many bad things they had done). Even the enemy near death was nursed by Bhai Kaniaya jee. Sikhism is a compassionate religion, and I think that there is no place for a death punishment in Sikhism.

vwihgurU jI kw Kwlsw!

vwihgurU jI kI &iqh!!

[S1ngh]

Ahhh peterson.. the famous guy of california and the guy who lived right next to bay area.. I am against the death penality but it always depend on case by case. In peterson case, i neither agree nor disagree with the penality he was given. I mostly lean toward the jury who decided to give him "D" penality because he never show any emotion sigh on his face. He just simply didn't show anything on his face when he was charged with 1st deg.. so i guess it's ok to get the penality in cases like this when the criminal doesn't feel sorry and so on...

[DhadiMania]

ok, my opinions are old. but there you are, thats me lol

death penalty, my opinion, its a good thing. because it send out a message that you cannot, and will not commit any crimes in a country. Britain, shehat aap nu patha hai ji, once had the lowest rates in crime in the world, before the death penalty was scarped. now you look at it, it has the highest rates of crime in the whole of europe! and that is shameful.

rapists, etc all end up getting a few monthes in jail now. the law has gone too soft because there is an overflow of the criminals. but would there have been an overflow had the death penalty been still around? i doubt it.

death penalty sends out a message that you cant commit a crime. and thats the good thing, it scares people into not doing a crime.

now that there are all these human rights activists, they have made the prisons turn into a hotel. with playstaion, good food as apart of the human rights acts, snooker, a bar. all this good stuff, at the british taxpayers expense, this would clearly make anyone commit a crime. so much security, theres not the traditional porrigde served anymore! infact the prison dinners are better than the school dinners! thats according to a newspaper i came across last year! that is why i say, the death penalty is good. but stupid jack straw had to sign a law saying britain could never bring it back! :wub: @ :wub: @

anyway

gustaphi maaf

[Sunny]

I agree with what Sony said!

Life in prison without parole is a living hell and it's surely a harsher punishment for a criminal. Imagine living in a small cell for the rest of your life, with crappy food, bad living conditions and always facing the danger of being harmed by your fellow inmates...

But then again, executing Scott Peterson will quite possibly restore some balance in the lives of the victim's family.

[Guest JSS]

i think they did hiim a favour by giving him the death penalty

i woulda preferrd just life in prison...then he woulda had to spend the rest of his life in an institution and everyone's little "special friend" there....

[Gill]

i m against the death penalty,

life in prison would have maybe made him realize his mistake,

and he could have had years and years to connect with god.

instead of facing god right after.

[Jaspaul Singh]

Straight out .. im against it ... BUT ...

IF the guy is a physcho i wouldnt mind beating him, giving him some 'juthia' as medicine.. it would feel really good... cuz after all there are some physcos out there dat life in prisonment wouldnt be all for them.

.... still a good debatable topic.... :T:

[Sunny]

n/t

[Princess]

I agree that the death penalty woud not solve anything in Peterson's case. Giving the death penalty to a criminal is in a way doing them a favour. By giving them death the criminal isn't being punished enough to realize their mistake. In Sikhism whenever someone did something wrong, the Guru's would find a way to show the person that they have erred as oppose to just killing them off. Giving a few years of imprisonment and then letting pyschopaths out is wrong. (Karla Homolka, a pyschopath in Canada is out of jail, makes you wonder if she even felt guilty for the murder of her own sister while she was in jail for that short period of time ? ).