I’ll probably rant on this topic in the future, but I read an interesting bit in a news story tonight that was discussing the execution of Tookie Williams:

With its racial overtones and compelling theme ? society’s dueling goals of redemption and retribution ? the case provoked more controversy than any California execution in a generation, and became a magnet for attention and media worldwide.

What I find interesting is that we continue to look at the penal system as being there for either redemption (rehabilitation, etc) or retribution. It’s like we have this mindset that putting someone in prison is either intended to help them see the errors of their ways and redeem themselves by rehabbing them and changing their life, or the intent is to punish them and “make them pay” for their crimes.

Personally, I have come more and more to a mindset that rehabilitation is a pretty tough goal to meet. And frankly, nearly everything I’ve read about the true conditions of most prisons indicates that they are perhaps the WORST place to try and “rehab” someone that we can dream up.

Which leaves retribution, and that of course begs all kinds of questions about whether we’re just satisfying base urges in our own egos, or whether or not people can truly “pay” for their crimes by being locked up for a certain amount of time.

As a newly practicing Buddhist, and specifically as a Nichiren Buddhist, I am called to believe that each and every person has a Buddha nature. Each person does have the capability to attain Buddhahood, enlightenment, in *this* lifetime.

This belief is very sorely tested when I think about the sickos like Bundy or Ridgway, and when I think about people who do things like Tookie Williams did- shotgunning a family while robbing their store.

Anyway, putting that aside, I have also come to the belief that prisons serve a much more utilitarian purpose: They keep the bad guys away from us.

It’s pretty simple, really. In Washington we have a “three strikes” law, where someone who gets convicted of three felony crimes gets put away for life without parole.

See, the theory is basic- some people just can’t live in society with the rest of us. They insist on continuing to do crime, cause trouble, and generally act in anti-social ways.

The British tried to solve this problem by just packing ‘em onto a boat and sending them to Australia. (I’m sure the Aborigines really appreciated that.) But this penal colony wound up merging with other colonies on the island and becoming a nation on its own.

Being Buddhist means accepting a philosophy of trying to find peaceful resolution to problems. The presidents of my Buddhist organization are strong proponents of lots and lots of dialogue between peoples, particularly between groups or individuals that are in conflict. That said, I hope that they would not say that dialogue is the answer if someone, say, just shot and killed someone in front of me and is now turning to point the gun at me. If I’ve got a gun and can stop someone from harming another, but I have to harm them to do it, I’m going to do exactly that.

Even the Dalai Lama agrees with this viewpoint. He calls for dialogue first, but recognizes that at some points war eventually can bring about some positive effects.

Getting a bit deeper into theory… as a general rule, Buddhists don’t want to take actions that serve as a negative cause for our karma. If we kill someone, that’s bad karma. At the same time, we don’t really have a list of “sins” that are “bad”; instead, we look at things and ask if they are “making a good cause” or “making a bad cause”; and we can look at these things (actions, thoughts, words, whatever) in whether they’re making a good/bad cause for ourself, and whether they’re making a good/bad cause for others.

Viewed in this mindset, there might be something that makes a realtively good cause for ourselves, but a bad cause for others, and vice-versa. If I see a terrorist guy about to set off a nuclear bomb and the only way to stop him is by running him over with my car, that’s a bad cause for my own karma. I’m going to suffer, personally, because I killed someone. But it’s a GREAT cause for the thousands or millions of people that I save by doing so. Overall, it’s definitely a good cause, and since Buddhism is all about compassion for others (as well as for self), I am duty-bound to take that action.

Tying this in with crime and punishment… I think that the appropriate response to someone who’s doing crime is to try and see their Buddha nature. We should work on the root causes (us Buddhists are very big into cause-and-effect, after all) and teach people a better way.

But when they’ve committed crime, while we should always try to rehabilitate those that are willing, we must also take reasonable action to protect ourselves and others. This changes the perspective of locking someone up from being a “make ‘em pay” mindset to a more practical one.

If someone demonstrates their unwillingness to live in our society under the rules of the society, then we’ve got to remove them from that society. Locking them up in a prison is an effective way of doing this.

Buddhism can be very practical. I would like to think that this approach to crime-and-punishment, which I’ve believed for several years, fits in well with my newfound Buddhist faith. I’m not entirely positive,but I do think it works without much conflict. A Buddhist leader would not ask people to allow a murderer to walk freely among them, putting them at risk; that would be a bad cause and lead to too much of a probability of a bad effect in the long run.

So we lock them up. Not to punish, not to rehab, but for the most basic reason of all- keep them away from those of us who are willing to follow the laws of the society.

Especially since we can’t just put ‘em on a boat to Australia.