Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00040)

Dear Doss:

In such cases tell them that you will never vote for the death
penalty if that is involved in a verdict that is desired from a
jury on which you are asked to sit.

If necessary I would tell them that they cannot destroy the
immortal SOUL and at best they can take revenge on the misguided
body, which was out of control for a while.

As a theosophist who is truly convinced in the IMMORTALITY of the
SOUL, and in KARMA, as well as the process of REINCARNATION you
refuse to take responsibility for a vote that might condemn a
person to death.

This ought to be done BEFORE you are empanelled. There are
questions lawyers ask BEFORE empanelling a jury. Address
yourself to the JUDGE. The Judge decides on the ultimate
fairness of the conduct of his court, not the lawyers although
they seem to take great latitudes in forcing those who testify to
say the truth and reveal secrets.

Always address the JUDGE. He is ultimately responsible. Most
Judges do not want mistrials.

Best wishes,

Dallas

-----Original Message-----
From: ramadoss@infohwy.com [mailto:ramadoss@infohwy.com]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 6:19 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com; theos-l@list.vnet.net
Subject: Theos-World Capital Punishment - HPB

Most of us are called on to be on a jury and may well be one
where the
criminal is prosecuted for death penalty. So one is faced with
what can do
while one hand doing one's duty to the country and on the other
hand doing
what one feels in one's conscience. The following article
clarifies it.
Thanks for Hill Country Theosophist for identifying the quote.

___MKR___

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
[Lucifer, Vol. VI, No. 34,
June, 1890, p. 335]
Having read with much interest in
Theosophical Siftings [No]. III, 1890.91) the
article by Dr. Franz Hartmann on "Capital
Punishment." I venture to ask your opinion on
the subject. I have long been sure that it is both
useless and wrong to put murderers to death-,
or, convinced by the same reasons which Dr.
Hartmann puts so urgently.
Moreover, I have often maintained that
line two wrongs do not make a right. Matters
cannot be mended by killing the man who has
taken the life of another. Hence 1 feel that
should I be called to serve on a jury in such a
trial, I must either declare my views at the
outset, which might result in the choice of a
"hanging" juryman in my place, or serve with
the intention of not convicting the accused of
wilful murder, no matter how guilty he might
he proved.

If that course were only to result in
keeping the criminal in custody for the rest of
his natural life. my conscience would be clear;
but, as it might easily set him again at liberty,
I feel in a dilemma. Will you kindly say in your
next issue what your opinion is, and help
perhaps more than one.

PUZZLED STUDENT.

We are equally with yourself opposed to
capital punishment, so that your difficulty
becomes our own.

In the first place the "head" of the
juryman has only to decide whether or not the
accused has committed murder, and this is all
the so-called "law" requires of him.
Practically, however, since the juryman
has, or ought to have, a "heart," the law
neglects an important factor in the problem for
if it punishes murder with death, the juryman,
in deciding for a verdict of guilty, of necessity
becomes an accessory in a fresh murder. But
the "heart" of the people is beginning to
protest against this "eye for an eye" code and
is refusing to render evil for evil. Capital
punishment is nothing but a relic of Jewish
barbarity. So that we are of opinion that this
feeling should be fostered by open protest on
every occasion, and by a refusal to participate
in such half human proceedings. The true
physician cures the disease, and does not kill
his patient. But we are afraid that the murder
doctors are in the majority for the moment, so
that we can only protest.-[EDS.]

BLAVATSKY: COLLECTED WRITINGS,
Vol. XII pp. 237-8




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/