廢除死刑的佛法觀點

佛教是「緣起論」，一方面申明「善惡有報」的因果律，一方面又依「緣起」正理導出「護生」理論。大乘佛教更強調菩薩對罪若眾生無怨無悔的救度，所以在死刑議題上，就不得不顧到各方的角度了。在被害人及其家屬的立場，傾向於「應報刑主義」的立場，這是值得同情的。但基於「護生」的精神，佛陀早已明確地將「不殺生戒」列為五種基本規範之首，所以決不可能讚許「用殺戮來解決問題」，殺戮只會帶來更多的殺戮。重刑犯固然死有餘辜，但對受害者及其眷屬而言，必須儆悟：仇恨與報復放遠都先懲罰著自己的身心。對社會大眾而言，必須注意：死刑制度讓一群不相關的人被捲進仇殺業網之中，國家執行死刑，這更是公權力的「暴力示範」，它讓「殺人」暴力有了「被合理化」的空間。國家以公權力對惡徒執行死刑，這已把第三者捲入了一個「參與殺業」的罥網之中──由第三者的法官判決之，檢察官監督之，法警執行之。事實上，這些「死有餘辜」的罪犯，即使逃得了死刑，也逃不了因果。藉時，毋需受害人及其眷屬親自出馬以作快意恩仇的了斷，毋需第三者捲入殺業的罥網以行刑，而是他自己的業力不能饒過他自己了。這比起國家公權力命令第三者介入殺業的死刑，可能是更符合社會正義的制裁吧！

關鍵字

死刑；殺雞儆猴；治亂世用重典；應報刑主義；不殺生戒；緣起論；暴力示範；寬恕；誤判；第三者介入殺業

並列摘要

Buddhism teaches the 'Theory of Dependent Origination' (pratitya-samutpada). On the one hand, it explains the Law of Cause and Effect that 'wholesome and unwholesome actions will reap their correspondent rewards/retributions'. On the other hand, based on the principal of 'Dependent Origination', it develops the theory of 'protecting lives'. The Mahayana Buddhism places great emphasis on how a bodhisattva should save and help the suffering sentient beings without any complaints and regrets. Thus, on the issue of the death penalty, considerations should be taken from various aspects. From the perspective of the victims and their family members, they may be inclined to the view of 'one should be punished according to one's actions'. Their feelings may be worthy of our sympathy. However, based on the aspiration of 'protecting lives', the Buddha has stated very clearly that 'no killing' is the first rule of the five basic moral ethics (the Five Precepts). It is absolutely impossible for Buddha to speak favorably of 'solving problems through killing'. Killings will only lead to more killings. Although death may be a deserved punishment for some serious criminals, the victims and their family members should remind themselves and understand that the punishment of hatred and revenge is always inflicted on our own body and mind first. To the public in the society, we should be aware that the death penalty system joins unrelated people into 'participating in the network of killing'. These include third parties such as the judge who makes the decision, the superintendents who supervise the imposed penalty and the officers who actually carry out the death penalty. When a country allows the performance of the death penalty, it is in fact a 'demonstration of violence' by public authority. It has made room for the violence of 'killing human beings' to 'become justified'. In fact, even if these criminals who 'deserved the punishment of death' can flee from the 'death penalty', they can not run away from the Law of Cause and Effect. When the time comes, it is not necessary for the victims and their family members to take revenge personally, and no third parties are needed to join into the network of killing. Their own karma will not let them run away. This is a punishment that is probably more in accordance to social justice than using the authority of government to order some third parties to partake in the death penalty.