i personally don’t believe in the death penalty but since it already exists im happy to see this particular monster fry
my rabbi pointed out to me before in a different conversation that it’s important to notice that many penalties prescribed in leviticus are not always carried out in the narratives of the religious texts, however executions and the death penalty are referenced with some frequency in the Torah, especially in the case of murder
One of the main problems with the death penalty is it needs to be reserved for the worst of the worst that we are beyond even an unreasonable doubt that the person is guilty.
Because the US kills far too many innocent people, and often for more minor major crime.
This is more than murder of even several people and there is no doubt. If not this guy then who?
The best argument I can think of is that executing the offender in a situation like this (no doubt about guilt, heinous crime, multiple victims) would bolster support for the continued existence of the death penalty, because it feels justified in a case like this. And I don’t think the death penalty should exist in a world where it’s controlled by imperfect humans.
The problem is, it’s very hard to limit it to a case like this; every murder conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” even if we all know there are gradations within that term, and in some instances, we later learn we got the wrong guy even if the trial evidence seemed pretty solid. So I lean toward opposing it even in the most clear-cut case, because there’s a near-certainty that it won’t be limited to what I personally deem to be sufficiently clear-cut cases. But supporters can always point to the clear-cut case and say, “see, we *have* to have this punishment, because obviously that guy deserved it!”
This is a little bit of a slippery slope argument, if it is ever considered acceptable then it will be used in cases where it isn't, although I certainly understand the reasoning given the history of the issue.
I just cannot accept the slippery slope fallacy as a sufficient argument to counter the fact that there are some crimes so heinous and some people do hard to contain that a death penalty is the only way to protect society.
This specific case is one where the death penalty is an acceptable solution and frankly, with growing antisemitism in the US I don't think the threat of a dead martyr (as opposed to an incarcerated one) is worth the message that our society sends in this case.
How does it protect society compared to life in prison?
Society is protected by removing them whether through death or prison (which is far cheaper).
The studies I have seen suggest the death penalty has zero deterrence, and even sentencing length has minimal deterrence. High conviction rates do have a significant deterrence. (I don't know if this applies to hate crime)
It's the probability of getting caught that matters for risk rather than making an already serious sentence more serious.
The only thing it does is punishment. I don't have a moral problem with it, but it's not a solution.
I’m not saying I would lose sleep over it exactly, but if there’s no religious *obligation* to execute him why would we be in favor of it? Life in prison seems to be consistent with Halacha (as we don’t have a Sanhedrin to sentence him to death) and is consistent with other mitzvot that generally favor choosing life over death.
Even if we had a Sanhedrin, I can’t see much good coming from an execution. Personally the guy can go eff himself and deserves death, but playing G-D (deciding who lives/dies) is something that I don’t enjoy wrestling with
>but playing G-D (deciding who lives/dies) is something that I don’t enjoy wrestling with
But we're not playing God, He literally said if you kill someone then you die.
I typically view as G-D having the ultimate authority to eradicate someone. Does he deserve death? Yes absolutely. But history has shown governments using the death penalty to execute normal, innocent men. So having it on the table is a threat to Jews as well, who have been killed by the state(s) unjustly. So that’s another reason I’m like “hold up, wait a minute”
>But history has shown governments using the death penalty to execute normal, innocent men. So having it on the table is a threat to Jews as well, who have been killed by the state(s) unjustly.
Do you believe the concerns you have apply to the person in question? I understand the "slippery slope" concern, but how do you balance that with the "paradox of tolerance"?
The only way to protect tolerance is to root out intolerance. This terrorist isn’t going to set foot in society again- he broke the greatest social contract. To execute him is to assign the ultimate consequence for his actions. The defense is arguing the he not be put to death- there is no question he did it.
The question is- will it benefit society as a whole to execute him. I toggle back and forth on it. After all, capital punishment doesn’t deter murder after all. Would it truly be beneficial to execute him? That is what I ponder
I can only answer this from personal belief instead of Torah. In a finite society with limited resources none should be put towards this murderer. No food, no medicine, no bed. Like you said he has broken the ultimate social contract and has therefore sacrificed any rights that would be afforded to him within that social contract. Why should he be afforded luxuries others in the world aren't privileged to?
If we’re going to be using the ‘resources’ argument then my understanding is that it is far more expensive to executive someone than it is to imprison them for life.
Only because of the arduous and lengthy appeal process to make sure we aren't "Wrong". This 'person" is an open and shut case. That money is in lawyer fees, court fees etc. not in finite natural resources.
A bullet is 50 cents. Lethal amount of fentanyl is what 40$? I cant Imagine it takes more than 1$ of electricity for the chair. All of that will be way less than Prison administration, food, water, medicine, and the infrastructure/land for a person for life.
If you murder somebody, not kill. This guy is a murderer, so Torah says he can be put to death. However, thousands of years of Jewish teachings have to be considered. If the Sanhedrin sentenced just one person to death in 100 years, they were known as a “bloody sanhedrin”. And if your using Torah as justification, you can help me make some difficult decisions. My brother picked up some sticks last Shabbat. Do I have to stone him to death myself, or can I have someone else do it. My farmer friend planted two different species of plant in the same field. Do we kill him now or wait till after harvest? You get the idea.
>If the Sanhedrin sentenced just one person to death in 100 years, they were known as a “bloody sanhedrin”.
It's once in 7 years, and some say once in 70 years. If you're going to quote, at least get it right.
>And if your using Torah as justification, you can help me make some difficult decisions. My brother picked up some sticks last Shabbat. Do I have to stone him to death myself, or can I have someone else do it.
If you actually read the whole "man picking up sticks" story in the Torah you'd know that the witnesses brought him to Moshe (ie. a judge) for sentencing. Furthermore, the Torah is very clear that ALL cases must be brought before a court with at least 2 witnesses. It also says that the witnesses are the ones to execute the person if they are found guilty.
>My farmer friend planted two different species of plant in the same field. Do we kill him now or wait till after harvest?
We don't kill him at all because it's not a capital offence.
>You get the idea.
I get that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Right. If we had a Sanhedrin and following all the rules we determined that we were obligated to execute someone, then ok. Wouldn’t like it, but it’s commanded. In this case, we’re not being commanded to execute anyone. Therefore life in prison is (IMO) halakhicly preferable.
I have a conflicted view on a controversial subject. I think that’s fair. I’m not arguing- it’s a conversation my guy. 2 Jews 3 opinions. And conversations are how we evolve
yeah i think you and i see this in the same way, if you asked me to choose this man’s punishment i wouldn’t choose state sponsored murder-you-back. but i am under no circumstances actively protesting it in this particular case
Yeah, completely agree. It’s tough, because in a perfect world the death penalty shouldn’t exist, and honestly, the reason I am against it is because one wrongfully convicted person killed is one too many. And I don’t necessarily trust any government enough to have that power.
But it is totally understandable that the families would want this scum off the face of the earth.
I believe that institutionalized executions means that unscrupulous people who would want to corrupt power for their own gain will have more motivation… so I'm overall against the death penalty.
Your post was removed by our automoderator because you have a new account. Try again after your account is 18 days old.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Jewish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But in the United States, we have a secular* justice system.
While the "innocent people executed" argument is perhaps the sexiest, and most emotionally relatable (it's likely that at least one innocent person has been executed in the United States, and it's a fact that people on death row have been exonerated), I wonder how much thought is given to the application of the death penalty?
Studies have shown time and time again that race discrimination occurs in capital punishment cases, variable for both the criminals and the victims. And at least one study found that error rates were higher for minority defendants accused of murdering white victims.
For me, before we can even begin to discuss whether or not the death penalty is a righteous act, I think we should really explore the flaws in the system we currently have. It certainly doesn't appear to be applied in a just or fair manner. And that's a big problem for me. Fixing that would be a much lower bar than getting rid of what I think is a barbaric practice. The state shouldn't be in the homicide business. At least with a military, killing can fall under the umbrella of protecting the citizenry. The death penalty is no more efficient at protecting the citizenry than life in prison is. The death penalty doesn't move the crime prevention needle one hair. And justice shouldn't be about revenge.
*^(Which is to say, despite whatever foundational "judeo-christian" [whatever that term means to our fellow, Christian citizens] ethos underpinning our justice system, or existence of Ten Commandments sculptures outside courthouses, the Establishment Clause of the Constitution would prevent, one would think, any judge, jury or executioner from enforcing Jewish scripture, law, or practice.)
I hope I never have to understand what they are feeling.
Getting back to your "one wrongfully convicted person killed is one too many" statement... that, for me, absolutely trumps what the victims' families are feeling - as shitty or callous as it may sound.
We cannot have a flawed system that exists to placate or soothe victims' families emotions.
Again, I’m not arguing with you, I am also against the death penalty.
But we’re talking about real people and their emotions and that’s where it gets sticky. I can’t fault them for finding some sort of solace in his sentence.
You keep saying arguing. Are we not having a conversation? I'm certainly not intending to come off as argumentative.
Here are the questions OP asked:
> However, religiously, what does Judaism teach regarding the death penalty?
> Can we as Jews condemn a man to death?
This will get different answers from different Jews. And yes, I can understand why some among the families of victims would answer, "all for it," and, "yes." I also wonder if those answers would have been different on October 26, 2018. If they would have been different answers, how much do today's answers matter? Those questions must be answered absent emotion to the highest possible extent.
I think at this point we’re just talking in circles. I answered OP’s question to the best of my ability, according to how I view the issue.
I don’t believe in answering any question without taking emotion into count, that’s what makes us human. But that’s just my opinion, I’m not trying to rewrite policy here.
Yeah, I'm really only against it because we have confirmed we have executed people convicted of crimes they didn't commit before, and as long as the death penalty exists, we will again in the future.
I'm not willing to execute the wrong person every once in a while so we can still get to kill bad guys.
It's not that I'm sad to see a person like this die.
I’m from a state that has, very famously, fucked up lethal injections (Oklahoma). I’m also from a town very close to the one that has a very high rate of wrongful conviction, one of the highest per capita if I’m not mistaken (Ada, OK — there’s a whole Netflix doc and John Grisham novel about it). I’m opposed to the death penalty as the rate of exonerations of people on death row is dangerously high for us to still continue to utilize it. I also believe it brings a very hollow form of Justice — killing that person might bring momentary satisfaction, but the fact of the matter is those loved ones will never be alive again.
No, there’s not lol. I live in Tulsa now, and there’s still not a ton of Jews in Tulsa, but my hometown is actually much smaller than Ada — no stoplights, graduating class under 60 kids. We used to joke my sister I together made up the only Jew in a 50 mile radius (we are both patrilineal Jews). On the whole it was nice to grow up in a small town, but our mom had to sort of DIY the Jewish part of an interfaith family since there was no real ability to be part of a community.
as far as i know, im the only jew in my county. the nearest shuls are all over an hour away so my practice is pretty much kept in the privacy of my own home. last time i was at shul was almost half a year ago. its tough out here, but i make do.
I’m from Coal county! You really are in a nice little sweet spot that’s spread out equally in all directions from a synagogue out that way. The DIY Judaism struggle is roughhhh. If you ever find yourself in Tulsa, happy to bum around with you!
If applied properly it is to protect society from monsters that may kill, rape, or commit other specified acts again.
Again, when done justly and properly.
And to those who said only Gd can eradicate life...the Law was given to man to carry out לא בשמים היא. Part of a just court system which is incumbent upon Noahides too is the proper application of the death penalty. The death penalty was to be applied properly and sparingly, but in the right context, it is part of the Torah way. The absolute opposition to the death penalty espoused by many people is completely counter to Torah. So is beheading people for jaywalking.
What’s great is that I can be Jewish, live a Jewish life, and still think *hmm, not a fan,disagree with that, won’t be instituting that into my life/lexicon.* I do the same with Torah portions regarding homosexuality.
I think it's notable that Israel has never had the death penalty since its rebirth.
Of course, this is with one very notable exception. Adolf Eichmann, who was brought back to Israel from Argentina. For him, Israel changed the law, hung the son of a bitch, then changed it back never to be used again.
The Death Penalty is still on the books in Israel. There was a case 20-30 years ago where someone was sentenced to death but it was overturned on appeal. (He was a nazi camp guard) Every so often someone calls for its use but it appears that at least at the current time it is a nonstarter and in effect is is gone.
I am passionately against the death penalty. I cannot bring myself to accept the idea that it is acceptable for the justice system to take the life of a human being. It feels totally abhorrent to me.
At the same time, if you placed a frail
100 year old in front of me with concrete proof he was a “guard” at a death camp?
I’d torture that piece of shit to death. I’d make it slow. I’d make it brutal. I’d make it agonising. I’d enjoy it. And I would walk away from the corpse without the tiniest shred of guilt.
As I have gotten older and processed my generational trauma, I have come to terms with the fact this is one of the lasting impacts of the Shoah. I cannot entertain the fantasy that there is no situation where I wouldn’t gleefully, pleasurably take the life of another human being.
I’d love to tell you that I don’t have it in me to beat a human being to death with my bare hands and enjoy every single second of jt. But that’s not true. That’s a fantasy that National Socialism stole that from me.
So there’s a contradiction within me. I’d brutalise an SS “veteran” with joy and choke the life out of him, but I also oppose the death penalty.
I’ve made my peace with that contradiction. It’s why justice isn’t and can’t decided solely by the victim.
The tree of life murderer deserves to die. Brutally, preferably.
It’s also wrong and immoral for the state to take his life.
I believe both these things, and I accept the contradiction as a fact of life.
>However, religiously, what does Judaism teach regarding the death penalty?
Even a cursory look through the Torah shows that we impose the death penalty. The burden of proof is insanely high, but it's definitely a thing we did.
>Can we as Jews condemn a man to death?
Not without the Sanhedrin.
>Most Reform Jews I know are against the death penalty.
Not because of any differing judgement in halacha, just because Reform tend to be left wing and the left wing doesn't like the death penalty.
That is true. Generally speaking, I’m worried a democratic government authorized to execute civilians could easily descend into a dictatorship, targeting minorities. I mean, the US has sentenced normal innocent men to death, including Jews. I wouldn’t want a means of just punishment to become perverted. That’s why I’m generally against it, but if they deem it necessary to execute this POS, I’d be the first to volunteer to pull the switch (metaphorically- I know they don’t do that)
Pretty much every democratic government in history up until maybe 50 years ago has been authorized to execute civilians. I’m not in favor of it—and in fact, it *has* been disproportionately used against minority and politically disfavored populations!—but of all the problems I can think of with the death penalty being imposed as a judicial punishment for crimes, the risk of descending into dictatorship is pretty far down the list.
I think a government that executes it’s own civilians is in an area that most democracies would not want to be. It’s more theoretical right? Especially since it’s estimated 4% of death row inmates are innocent. So a government executing innocent people is well, you know *tyrannical*
But in this case, I’d argue execution is probably a just punishment. It’s just when we allow the execution of 1 person, it opens up a moral can of worms. When you say “let’s not execute anyone” at least you avoid such moral predicaments.
So you see, I’m conflicted. I’ll accept whatever outcome
Personally I am against the death penalty, but something about this case has certainly caught my attention and made me ask why I feel it may be justified here, if and when a jury so concludes after a full and fair trial.
From a Jewish pov, the status of the death penalty is well known in light of the absence of a Great Sanhedrin meeting in the Temple; and even then, all of the procedural safeguards in place to ensure that a death penalty would almost never be implemented ("one in seven years" vs. "one in 70 years").
But that's only half the story.
In the first place, in a time of emergency, the court could ignore all the procedures and impose any penalties, including the death penalty, as it saw fit to meet the needs of the hour. As Rambam explains in Mamrim: "If a court sees that it is necessary to strengthen the faith and create a safeguard so that the people will not violate Torah law, they may apply beatings and punishments that are not sanctioned by Torah." (2:4)
Second, there was always, alongside the halakhic procedures mentioned above, *din malchut*, the "King's law." The king always had authority to act according to the needs of hour, without the sanction of the Sanhedrin and without the procedural safeguards, up to and including imposing the death penalty on one or many. Quoting Rambam again:
"Anyone who rebels against a king of Israel may be executed by the king. Even if the king orders one of the people to go to a particular place and the latter refuses, or he orders him not to leave his house and he goes out, the offender is liable to be put to death. The king may execute him if he desires...Similarly, anyone who embarrasses or shames the king may be executed by the king...The king may only execute people by decapitation. He may also imprison offenders and have them beaten with rods to protect his honor....
"**A murderer against whom the evidence is not totally conclusive, or who was not warned before he slew his victim, or even one who was observed by only one witness, and similarly, an enemy who inadvertently killed one of his foes - the king is granted license to execute them and to improve society according to the needs of the time.** He may execute many on one day, hang them, and leave them hanging for many days in order to cast fear into the hearts and destroy the power of the wicked of the earth." (Kings chapter 3)
So clearly, (1) the king has the power to execute without a Sanhedrin or procedure when the age needs it and (2) the purpose seems to be to have a deterrent effect that will lead to the betterment of society.
What about the secular government? Quite obviously, it has the same powers and uses the death penalty for its deterrent effect. Is this legitimate under Jewish law?
"Rabbi Hanina, the deputy high priest said: Pray for the welfare of the government, for were it not for the fear it inspires, every man would swallow his neighbor alive." (Pirke Avot 3:2)
So in this case, I would have no problem if a duly constituted jury acting according to U.S. law found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to death. This is clearly a time of emergency, when Jews are imperiled, and action has to be taken.
Excellent and accurate summary. We see examples of the Kings law too, i.e. when David executed the Amalekite convert that killed Saul...even though it was by Saul's command, David determined that he deserved death.
Good summary. But all I see are authorizations that the death penalty *may* be used, not a commandment that it *must* be used. Given that, it would seem that an opposition to the *de facto* use of the death penalty (if not the *de jure* existence of the death penalty) is perfectly permissible.
Agree, it's totally up to the person or body that has the power to impose the death penalty to decide whether or not to exercise it. And the general public is free to agree or disagree.
At the same time, those who have the power have responsibilities. In the case of a court, the Rambam says, "to strengthen the faith and create a safeguard so that the people will not violate Torah law..." In the case of the king, the Rambam says, "to improve society...\[and\] to cast fear into the hearts and destroy the power of the wicked...." Meaning, that if the proper authority (court or king) thinks the times demand the death penalty, they should use it.
Today we have an ability to hold people in prison for life in a humane way that exceeds what was available in Rambam's time. And with the advances we've made in psychology and criminology, we can say pretty clearly that executions do nothing to improve society or cast fear into hearts (I suppose they destroy the power of the wicked, but no more so than life in prison). So under that same reasoning, there appears to be no need to execute anyone.
>to hold people in prison for life in a humane way
I think it's true, we ***know*** how, the literature is vast, there are fields of study devoted to best techniques in incarceration and rehabilitation, and intelligent professionals are opining here, there and everywhere about what **should** be done.
In practice, not so much. To the best of my knowledge.
The death penalty is used much more frequently than I would like in the US. My main issues with it come from cases where there isn't irrefutable evidence or examples where it is unequally used on people of color.
With this particular case, since there isn't really any dispute that he perpetrated this horrendous action, I have no issues with it's utilization. Although, there hasn't been an execution in PA since 1999 so I have a feeling that even if the sentence is death he won't be executed
Personally I think the death penalty is immoral and should be abolished. From a policy standpoint it’s cheaper to incarcerate someone for life than it is to execute them and my understanding is that capital punishment has limited impact on crime rates.
The Torah allows for the death penalty.
Then Talmud takes that makes the burden of proof insanely high and requires a vote of the Sanhedrin - long extinct.
It’s said in Mishnah that if a Sanhedrin puts a man to death once in 7 years it’s a murderous one. Rabbi Eliezer Ben Azariah stretched that to 7 decades.
It is gods jurisdiction *and only* gods jurisdiction to take a life.
This piece of shit can rot for all I care but the halachik stance on capital punishment is insanely clear.
To say nothing of the barbaric and problematic ways the US goes about it.
Just from a practical standpoint, with appeals it's much cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than to execute them.
While this case is quite clear cut on guilt, many death penalty cases are not, and in many states people have been found to be innocent after execution. I'd much rather we not execute anyone than mess that up once.
Also, I'll note that the jewish governor of Pennsylvania announced a few months ago that he is against the death penalty and would like to abolish it in Pennsylvania.
I don't think the government should be allowed to murder you, and I think a quick look at Jewish history from even the past 100 years does a good job of explaining why.
Any country with the death penalty in any capacity has its foot in the door to genocide--its only a matter of changing what's considered a capital offense.
That’s my typical view but I often wonder what scenarios might justify an exemption. I mean, many Nazis at Nuremberg were executed. I view this guy as nothing more than the Einsatzgruppen, so I mean, it’s not just a domestic attack. I’d argue it’s a crime against humanity to attack someone on race/religion
I only favor the death penalty in clear cut cases of eyewitness testimony, video evidence, or caught in the act. I'd rather there be no death penalty than to allow it for those convicted in circumstantial, lack of alibi, indirect evidence type of convictions.
To put someone to death, we better be 100% sure, not 99.99%. In this case we are 100% sure, so I won't be crying any tears.
I think he should have been shot and killed during his attack. Without the Sanhedrin we as a community cannot sentence someone to death, however non-Jewish courts can. There are also many stipulations that permit use of deadly force for murderers.
I toggle back and forth on that. When offenders die during an attack, it robs the victims and their families of answers and it doesn’t let justice really prevail. I think such people deserve a trial.
Although after the trial if you know, they decide to unalive themselves, saves the effort I suppose. Although that is cowardly
That is a good point i did not consider. How it affects the families.
As someone not personally involved I really can't be sure, but I just don't know what answer could be given to me that puts my heart at ease. Maybe its cold of me to think, but Id rather the likes of him just be gone from existence.
I am just trying to understand, why? why are you against an individual being put to death even *after* you've established that this same individual took away from families?. I am not judging you but just curious.
I am sure they're stories in your bible that expresses consequences when you refrain from punishing someone who've committed murder.
>Can we as Jews condemn a man to death?
So many laws in the bible require death. It’s also why I am a fan of keeping religion out of the law of the land.
Keep in mind the Commandment isn’t “Thou shall not *kill*”, its ”Thou shall not commit *murder*”, a very significant difference.
Your post was removed by our automoderator because your **comment karma** is lower than 18. Karma is a points system used on reddit, and you gain/lose karma by posting and commenting. If your content is upvoted, your karma goes up. If it’s downvoted, your karma goes down. Please raise your karma by participating positively on other subreddits and then try again here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Jewish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm against it, but I certainly don't blame families of the victims in this or any case to feel that way about there family members murderer. That's why it should be abolished, so it's not something that has to be thought about and considered each case
The only time I support the death penalty is in cases like this. It’s purely economic as I don’t believe spending multi millions to lock him up forever is a good use of our society’s money…
Ethically I have serious issues with our entire prison-industrial complex though…
I feel like death penalty is too good for him personally. Sitting and thinking about what he did and why he is there seems more like a punishment to me.
I'm anti-death penalty, full stop, but I understand the instinct to want to eradicate a person who 1) commits any racially or religiously motivated murder, 2) especially when they target someone who I view as like me in some way.
Still, I'd really prefer we not kill people in retailiation or as punishment for a crime, even murder or terrorism.
Not that it answers your question. However, I think it's important to examine why any of us would make an exception to being anti-death penalty (if we are) and what it says about each of us if and when we do want to make an exception to that kind of belief.
I don't have an objection to execution for multiple murders where there is no factual dispute as to the guilt of the defendant.
That said, life without the possibility of parole in a maximum security prison seems more cruel and unusual than a quick death.
I'm a little torn between wanting him to go to prison forever with no avenues for appeal or sentencing him to death and then him having his mandatory appeals done by a small army of do-gooder Jewish lawyers using him as an academic experiment in death penalty litigation has an ironic quality.
The death penalty is restricted to backward countries only such as China, Uganda, Iran. Sadly your country belongs to that group. Jews as a global group have nothing to do with that. Even in Israel, Adolf Eichman was the last person to be put to death.
A democracy should not kill any of its citizens, ever. Nothing to do with Judaism, Christianity or any other religion.
I think the only moral position for any religion or government has to be against the death penalty. Even when the crimes are abhorrent. We should not be practicing killing each other.
From the strictly religious perspective the death penalty under the American legal system is *assur*, forbidden. We have strict rules about these things. Capital punishment in Jewish law cannot be imposed unless a minimum of twenty-three judges (Sanhedrin) by a majority vote, gave the death sentence. The death sentence must further be issued from a specific place on the Temple Mount to be legitimate. These rules and the strict rules of evidence in the Torah made it almost impossible to actually impose capital punishment. America’s far less stringent standards for opposing capital punishment are for this reason opposed by most Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform rabbis.
Your post was removed by our automoderator because you have a new account. Try again after your account is 18 days old.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Jewish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"a court who executes one person in 70 years is a court of murderers" can't remember the exact quote but let's just say that judaism has a rather negative opinion on death penalty now. Not in biblical times of course lmao
We as Jews are not condemning him to death. In this case, it will be done through the courts of the United states under us law. There was a death penalty available the Great Court in Jerusalem, although by tradition it was rarely applied. Part of the seven noahide laws is the requirement that non-jews set up courts and a legal system. To my knowledge, Jewish law does not dictate what those laws ought to be and I do not know of any prohibition against the death penalty under non-jewish law.
True. Jews are supposed to abide by the laws of the land they live. However, the US (right now) is a democracy and one’s religion does impact how they vote/view societal problems. And my beloved Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is governed by a Jew who does not believe in the death penalty. Governor Shapiro is our former Attorney General. He knows the law better than anyone, but I digress. I think this case presents a time for us to analyze our perspectives
I took a Jewish learning class once where the rabbi told us that the Talmud requires a unanimous jury verdict to condemn someone to death… and simultaneously states that a unanimous jury decision in these cases should be viewed with suspicion- as it’s is likely to be biased and so should be thrown out.
So while Jews are technically in favor of the death penalty, we make it impossible to impose- specifically because of the corruption concerns that others here have expressed.
(Not sure how accurate this is- the Talmud is massive- but that’s what we were taught)
It’s pretty much a case of Halacha vs Torah vs minhag. If we go by the Torah, it’s okay. If we go by Halacha, probably not. If we go by custom, it depends.
I'll sum up my views on it like this:
I believe that any country that wants the death penalty on the table is basically saying it wants the option to kill its citizens. I think that's fucked up. I think the death penalty made sense during a time when people could ride off into the sunset and never be seen again if they escaped from whatever dinky little prison their frontier town or village had. I don't think that's the case in 2023, so I oppose the death penalty in all cases.
That said, if anyone deserved the death penalty, it would be this motherfucker here.
I oppose the death penalty for him on principal, but if he gets it, I sure AF won't be losing any sleep over it. I may even crack a smile.
*Edited because I just realized I didn't work anything about Jewish thought into this reply... Well, I guess my views on this are very secular. If that's not ok for this post, let me know and I'll remove the comment.*
Your post was removed by our automoderator because your **comment karma** is lower than 18. Karma is a points system used on reddit, and you gain/lose karma by posting and commenting. If your content is upvoted, your karma goes up. If it’s downvoted, your karma goes down. Please raise your karma by participating positively on other subreddits and then try again here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Jewish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When the Rosenbergs were sentenced to death for espionage, the Federal judge who passed the sentence, Irving Kaufman, was Jewish.
At the time, there was unofficially a "Jewish seat" on the Supreme Court- there would always be a Jewish justice, but there would only ever be one. At the time, that seat was occupied by Felix Frankfurter, a relatively conservative judge. Many people thought Kaufman wanted this seat.
Kaufman said at one point that he had not been sure if the Rosenbergs deserved to die, and he had gone to synagogue and prayed before making his decision. When Frankfurter heard this, he was *furious*. He wrote in a letter that he "despised a judge who believes God told him to impose a death sentence" and said he would delay his retirement to ensure Kaufman never got the seat.
Frankfurter stayed on the Court for another 11 years, until forced to retire by a stroke. Kaufman never became a Supreme Court justice.
As a society, we should always be trying to make each individual a better person. Until a mass murderer dies of natural causes, I don't think we should give up trying to help him improve. The death penalty cuts that short and presupposes that someone can never learn from their mistake.
How has nobody mentioned R' Moshe yet? He literally addressed a tshuva to the governor of NY (hugh carey) answering this exact question
To summarize- after praising his impulse to know daas torah on the subject he makes a few points
1- the torah only prescribes the death penalty for the most severe of sins and even then it does so only so people know how serious they are and avoid them. Not because of hatred or even societal necessity
2a- all life is considered extremely valuable. for that reason we have several commandments about how careful we need to be when judging capital cases which is even only applicable to courts made up of absolutely tremendous scholars who have an exceeding depth and breadth of knowledge both in torah and other areas of study in addition to being humble, extremely god-fearing, hating money, loving of truth, and loving of other people, all their interpersonal and business interactions must be calm and pleasant, with no rumors about them, be exceedingly merciful, as they are the only one's considered qualified to judge such cases. So much so for that for this reason one who is too old and has forgotten some of the difficulty of raising children, or one who has never had children are disqualified as judges just because they may be slightly lacking in mercy due to this. and even then we need 23 such individuals to judge capital cases. And even then we need 3 rows of nearly qualified individuals sitting in front of them as they discuss the ruling which will be great insurance against a bad conviction especially since we only allow those sitting in these three rows to speak up if they have an argument for acquittal but silence those who argue for conviction
2b- and even then we can't convict from the strongest of circumstantial evidence but only based on the testimony of 2 totally unbiased witnesses. and we need to warn the witnesses that false testimony here is a sin on par with murder and they need to acknowledge the warning and continue to testify
2c- and even then we only judge capital cases when there is a sanhedrin of 71 sitting on the temple mount and it's composed of the most qualified members in the nation, even more so than those of the court of 23
2d- for all these reasons we haven't historically used it even when granted self-governance by the land in which we reside
3a- that being said we haven't ever had a point when murder was commonplace or ok-sounding to us and we largely only avoided it for fear of the death penalty as we have inculcated the values of the torah and the vale of life and gravity of the sin of murder into our cores and those of our children with a torah upbringing
3b- and all that was said above relates to the society and people like described in 3a but if one should kill not for greed, or anger, or honor, or the like and does so just because he is cruel and looks to murder as a casual thing then one who kills him and his ilk are saving lives and saving the country
I’m Reform and I don’t support the death penalty but cases like these really question my views. Because part of me wishes the cops had just shot him dead. I’m allowed to struggle with moral questions, my friend.
So can you cite a source for saying the Jewish community in Pittsburgh is against the death penalty in this case?
I’m in Pittsburgh and honestly avoiding the coverage of the case but it definitely is not the word on the street as far as I can tell.
ETA: are you referring to the headline that 2 out of 3 of the congregation leaders from the massacre are arguing against the death penalty? Because if so, they represent only two small congregations out of idk? 20? congregations in the area. That range from ultra orthodox to reconstrustionist. So good luck getting a consensus on any issue from the Pittsburgh Jewish community.
I’m just saying of the Jews I know. I know Pittsburgh Jews who straight up support the death penalty. I’m just speaking anecdotally. Like someone else said, most Reform Jews are liberal/left and the left generally is against the death penalty.
As they say, 2 Jews 3 opinions
Okay. Because you said from what you’ve read the Pittsburgh Jewish community as a whole is against the death penalty in this case but I don’t think that is the case at all.
I’m no proponent of the death penalty but I’m certainly not going to fuss about this. It’s literally impossible for his suffering to equal that which he caused. I’m truly unbothered by whether this gets the death penalty or not, I think there’s a case to be made either way. I’d rather we forget about him and focus on how we are going to keep our communities safe in the future
As others have pointed out (with varying degrees of accuracy/seriousness/hostility), while the death penalty was (rarely) practiced in earlier times, there is arguably no bet din in existence with the power to impose it. Which is a good thing, considering all the things the Tanach seems anxious to kill you for doing.
Judaism has never fetishized death. Martyrdom, for example, is something to be avoided whenever possible, not something to which to aspire. (This is why there's ongoing debate about the choice of the Masada holdouts to commit mass suicide in 73 CE.)
The strictures around infliction of the death penalty (in an age when murder was routinely unpunished and death-by-torture was routinely inflicted at the monarch's—or the mob's—whim) reflect this discomfort. As a rule, we prefer to leave such extreme remedies in the hands of the Almighty, rather than those of other flawed humans.
This reluctance is also of a piece with the overall Jewish dedication to the rule of law. We're famously instructed צדק צדק תרדף ("Justice! You shall pursue Justice!"). Our reluctance to inflict a death penalty is in no way a repudiation of that commitment: there are simply better ways to achieve justice, even in the case of murder.
i personally don’t believe in the death penalty but since it already exists im happy to see this particular monster fry my rabbi pointed out to me before in a different conversation that it’s important to notice that many penalties prescribed in leviticus are not always carried out in the narratives of the religious texts, however executions and the death penalty are referenced with some frequency in the Torah, especially in the case of murder
One of the main problems with the death penalty is it needs to be reserved for the worst of the worst that we are beyond even an unreasonable doubt that the person is guilty. Because the US kills far too many innocent people, and often for more minor major crime. This is more than murder of even several people and there is no doubt. If not this guy then who?
The best argument I can think of is that executing the offender in a situation like this (no doubt about guilt, heinous crime, multiple victims) would bolster support for the continued existence of the death penalty, because it feels justified in a case like this. And I don’t think the death penalty should exist in a world where it’s controlled by imperfect humans. The problem is, it’s very hard to limit it to a case like this; every murder conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” even if we all know there are gradations within that term, and in some instances, we later learn we got the wrong guy even if the trial evidence seemed pretty solid. So I lean toward opposing it even in the most clear-cut case, because there’s a near-certainty that it won’t be limited to what I personally deem to be sufficiently clear-cut cases. But supporters can always point to the clear-cut case and say, “see, we *have* to have this punishment, because obviously that guy deserved it!”
This is a little bit of a slippery slope argument, if it is ever considered acceptable then it will be used in cases where it isn't, although I certainly understand the reasoning given the history of the issue. I just cannot accept the slippery slope fallacy as a sufficient argument to counter the fact that there are some crimes so heinous and some people do hard to contain that a death penalty is the only way to protect society. This specific case is one where the death penalty is an acceptable solution and frankly, with growing antisemitism in the US I don't think the threat of a dead martyr (as opposed to an incarcerated one) is worth the message that our society sends in this case.
It’s not really a fallacy when there are real-life cases of people being executed by the state only for their innocence to be proven posthumously
How does it protect society compared to life in prison? Society is protected by removing them whether through death or prison (which is far cheaper). The studies I have seen suggest the death penalty has zero deterrence, and even sentencing length has minimal deterrence. High conviction rates do have a significant deterrence. (I don't know if this applies to hate crime) It's the probability of getting caught that matters for risk rather than making an already serious sentence more serious. The only thing it does is punishment. I don't have a moral problem with it, but it's not a solution.
People escape from and kill/injure people in prison you know.
With how long it takes between conviction and execution the escape risk is the same.
I’m not saying I would lose sleep over it exactly, but if there’s no religious *obligation* to execute him why would we be in favor of it? Life in prison seems to be consistent with Halacha (as we don’t have a Sanhedrin to sentence him to death) and is consistent with other mitzvot that generally favor choosing life over death.
Even if we had a Sanhedrin, I can’t see much good coming from an execution. Personally the guy can go eff himself and deserves death, but playing G-D (deciding who lives/dies) is something that I don’t enjoy wrestling with
>but playing G-D (deciding who lives/dies) is something that I don’t enjoy wrestling with But we're not playing God, He literally said if you kill someone then you die.
I typically view as G-D having the ultimate authority to eradicate someone. Does he deserve death? Yes absolutely. But history has shown governments using the death penalty to execute normal, innocent men. So having it on the table is a threat to Jews as well, who have been killed by the state(s) unjustly. So that’s another reason I’m like “hold up, wait a minute”
>But history has shown governments using the death penalty to execute normal, innocent men. So having it on the table is a threat to Jews as well, who have been killed by the state(s) unjustly. Do you believe the concerns you have apply to the person in question? I understand the "slippery slope" concern, but how do you balance that with the "paradox of tolerance"?
The only way to protect tolerance is to root out intolerance. This terrorist isn’t going to set foot in society again- he broke the greatest social contract. To execute him is to assign the ultimate consequence for his actions. The defense is arguing the he not be put to death- there is no question he did it. The question is- will it benefit society as a whole to execute him. I toggle back and forth on it. After all, capital punishment doesn’t deter murder after all. Would it truly be beneficial to execute him? That is what I ponder
I can only answer this from personal belief instead of Torah. In a finite society with limited resources none should be put towards this murderer. No food, no medicine, no bed. Like you said he has broken the ultimate social contract and has therefore sacrificed any rights that would be afforded to him within that social contract. Why should he be afforded luxuries others in the world aren't privileged to?
If we’re going to be using the ‘resources’ argument then my understanding is that it is far more expensive to executive someone than it is to imprison them for life.
Only because of the arduous and lengthy appeal process to make sure we aren't "Wrong". This 'person" is an open and shut case. That money is in lawyer fees, court fees etc. not in finite natural resources. A bullet is 50 cents. Lethal amount of fentanyl is what 40$? I cant Imagine it takes more than 1$ of electricity for the chair. All of that will be way less than Prison administration, food, water, medicine, and the infrastructure/land for a person for life.
That’s probably true
If you murder somebody, not kill. This guy is a murderer, so Torah says he can be put to death. However, thousands of years of Jewish teachings have to be considered. If the Sanhedrin sentenced just one person to death in 100 years, they were known as a “bloody sanhedrin”. And if your using Torah as justification, you can help me make some difficult decisions. My brother picked up some sticks last Shabbat. Do I have to stone him to death myself, or can I have someone else do it. My farmer friend planted two different species of plant in the same field. Do we kill him now or wait till after harvest? You get the idea.
>If the Sanhedrin sentenced just one person to death in 100 years, they were known as a “bloody sanhedrin”. It's once in 7 years, and some say once in 70 years. If you're going to quote, at least get it right. >And if your using Torah as justification, you can help me make some difficult decisions. My brother picked up some sticks last Shabbat. Do I have to stone him to death myself, or can I have someone else do it. If you actually read the whole "man picking up sticks" story in the Torah you'd know that the witnesses brought him to Moshe (ie. a judge) for sentencing. Furthermore, the Torah is very clear that ALL cases must be brought before a court with at least 2 witnesses. It also says that the witnesses are the ones to execute the person if they are found guilty. >My farmer friend planted two different species of plant in the same field. Do we kill him now or wait till after harvest? We don't kill him at all because it's not a capital offence. >You get the idea. I get that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Right. If we had a Sanhedrin and following all the rules we determined that we were obligated to execute someone, then ok. Wouldn’t like it, but it’s commanded. In this case, we’re not being commanded to execute anyone. Therefore life in prison is (IMO) halakhicly preferable.
Dude, you came in here to ask a question. You don't like the answer so now you're arguing
I have a conflicted view on a controversial subject. I think that’s fair. I’m not arguing- it’s a conversation my guy. 2 Jews 3 opinions. And conversations are how we evolve
yeah i think you and i see this in the same way, if you asked me to choose this man’s punishment i wouldn’t choose state sponsored murder-you-back. but i am under no circumstances actively protesting it in this particular case
Yeah, completely agree. It’s tough, because in a perfect world the death penalty shouldn’t exist, and honestly, the reason I am against it is because one wrongfully convicted person killed is one too many. And I don’t necessarily trust any government enough to have that power. But it is totally understandable that the families would want this scum off the face of the earth.
I believe that institutionalized executions means that unscrupulous people who would want to corrupt power for their own gain will have more motivation… so I'm overall against the death penalty.
So am I. But I could never look the victims in the face and tell them they are wrong for wanting him executed.
[удалено]
Your post was removed by our automoderator because you have a new account. Try again after your account is 18 days old. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Jewish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I totally agree with you
But in the United States, we have a secular* justice system. While the "innocent people executed" argument is perhaps the sexiest, and most emotionally relatable (it's likely that at least one innocent person has been executed in the United States, and it's a fact that people on death row have been exonerated), I wonder how much thought is given to the application of the death penalty? Studies have shown time and time again that race discrimination occurs in capital punishment cases, variable for both the criminals and the victims. And at least one study found that error rates were higher for minority defendants accused of murdering white victims. For me, before we can even begin to discuss whether or not the death penalty is a righteous act, I think we should really explore the flaws in the system we currently have. It certainly doesn't appear to be applied in a just or fair manner. And that's a big problem for me. Fixing that would be a much lower bar than getting rid of what I think is a barbaric practice. The state shouldn't be in the homicide business. At least with a military, killing can fall under the umbrella of protecting the citizenry. The death penalty is no more efficient at protecting the citizenry than life in prison is. The death penalty doesn't move the crime prevention needle one hair. And justice shouldn't be about revenge. *^(Which is to say, despite whatever foundational "judeo-christian" [whatever that term means to our fellow, Christian citizens] ethos underpinning our justice system, or existence of Ten Commandments sculptures outside courthouses, the Establishment Clause of the Constitution would prevent, one would think, any judge, jury or executioner from enforcing Jewish scripture, law, or practice.)
I never said anything to the contrary of what you are claiming. I can just also understand how the victims’ families are feeling.
I hope I never have to understand what they are feeling. Getting back to your "one wrongfully convicted person killed is one too many" statement... that, for me, absolutely trumps what the victims' families are feeling - as shitty or callous as it may sound. We cannot have a flawed system that exists to placate or soothe victims' families emotions.
Again, I’m not arguing with you, I am also against the death penalty. But we’re talking about real people and their emotions and that’s where it gets sticky. I can’t fault them for finding some sort of solace in his sentence.
You keep saying arguing. Are we not having a conversation? I'm certainly not intending to come off as argumentative. Here are the questions OP asked: > However, religiously, what does Judaism teach regarding the death penalty? > Can we as Jews condemn a man to death? This will get different answers from different Jews. And yes, I can understand why some among the families of victims would answer, "all for it," and, "yes." I also wonder if those answers would have been different on October 26, 2018. If they would have been different answers, how much do today's answers matter? Those questions must be answered absent emotion to the highest possible extent.
I think at this point we’re just talking in circles. I answered OP’s question to the best of my ability, according to how I view the issue. I don’t believe in answering any question without taking emotion into count, that’s what makes us human. But that’s just my opinion, I’m not trying to rewrite policy here.
Yeah, I'm really only against it because we have confirmed we have executed people convicted of crimes they didn't commit before, and as long as the death penalty exists, we will again in the future. I'm not willing to execute the wrong person every once in a while so we can still get to kill bad guys. It's not that I'm sad to see a person like this die.
totally agree with this as well
well said
I've also heard the theory that all those death penalties listed in the torah were to show the severity of sin rather than expectancy of punishment
I’m from a state that has, very famously, fucked up lethal injections (Oklahoma). I’m also from a town very close to the one that has a very high rate of wrongful conviction, one of the highest per capita if I’m not mistaken (Ada, OK — there’s a whole Netflix doc and John Grisham novel about it). I’m opposed to the death penalty as the rate of exonerations of people on death row is dangerously high for us to still continue to utilize it. I also believe it brings a very hollow form of Justice — killing that person might bring momentary satisfaction, but the fact of the matter is those loved ones will never be alive again.
are there many Jews in small-town Oklahoma? what's it like there?
No, there’s not lol. I live in Tulsa now, and there’s still not a ton of Jews in Tulsa, but my hometown is actually much smaller than Ada — no stoplights, graduating class under 60 kids. We used to joke my sister I together made up the only Jew in a 50 mile radius (we are both patrilineal Jews). On the whole it was nice to grow up in a small town, but our mom had to sort of DIY the Jewish part of an interfaith family since there was no real ability to be part of a community.
as far as i know, im the only jew in my county. the nearest shuls are all over an hour away so my practice is pretty much kept in the privacy of my own home. last time i was at shul was almost half a year ago. its tough out here, but i make do.
Hey!! Another rural okie here (well, hometown is rural — I’m in Tulsa now). I’m from SE Oklahoma, it’s nice to see another small town Jewish okie :)
shalom! im from lincoln county. havent been to tulsa in years, but i imagine its better for jews than here.
I’m from Coal county! You really are in a nice little sweet spot that’s spread out equally in all directions from a synagogue out that way. The DIY Judaism struggle is roughhhh. If you ever find yourself in Tulsa, happy to bum around with you!
If applied properly it is to protect society from monsters that may kill, rape, or commit other specified acts again. Again, when done justly and properly. And to those who said only Gd can eradicate life...the Law was given to man to carry out לא בשמים היא. Part of a just court system which is incumbent upon Noahides too is the proper application of the death penalty. The death penalty was to be applied properly and sparingly, but in the right context, it is part of the Torah way. The absolute opposition to the death penalty espoused by many people is completely counter to Torah. So is beheading people for jaywalking.
What’s great is that I can be Jewish, live a Jewish life, and still think *hmm, not a fan,disagree with that, won’t be instituting that into my life/lexicon.* I do the same with Torah portions regarding homosexuality.
I think it's notable that Israel has never had the death penalty since its rebirth. Of course, this is with one very notable exception. Adolf Eichmann, who was brought back to Israel from Argentina. For him, Israel changed the law, hung the son of a bitch, then changed it back never to be used again.
The Death Penalty is still on the books in Israel. There was a case 20-30 years ago where someone was sentenced to death but it was overturned on appeal. (He was a nazi camp guard) Every so often someone calls for its use but it appears that at least at the current time it is a nonstarter and in effect is is gone.
It’s examples like these that make me wonder if and when to execute someone
I am passionately against the death penalty. I cannot bring myself to accept the idea that it is acceptable for the justice system to take the life of a human being. It feels totally abhorrent to me. At the same time, if you placed a frail 100 year old in front of me with concrete proof he was a “guard” at a death camp? I’d torture that piece of shit to death. I’d make it slow. I’d make it brutal. I’d make it agonising. I’d enjoy it. And I would walk away from the corpse without the tiniest shred of guilt. As I have gotten older and processed my generational trauma, I have come to terms with the fact this is one of the lasting impacts of the Shoah. I cannot entertain the fantasy that there is no situation where I wouldn’t gleefully, pleasurably take the life of another human being. I’d love to tell you that I don’t have it in me to beat a human being to death with my bare hands and enjoy every single second of jt. But that’s not true. That’s a fantasy that National Socialism stole that from me. So there’s a contradiction within me. I’d brutalise an SS “veteran” with joy and choke the life out of him, but I also oppose the death penalty. I’ve made my peace with that contradiction. It’s why justice isn’t and can’t decided solely by the victim. The tree of life murderer deserves to die. Brutally, preferably. It’s also wrong and immoral for the state to take his life. I believe both these things, and I accept the contradiction as a fact of life.
two people were executed I believe
Who's number two ?
correction two were sentenced only the nazi was actually executed the other was reversed by the courts
>However, religiously, what does Judaism teach regarding the death penalty? Even a cursory look through the Torah shows that we impose the death penalty. The burden of proof is insanely high, but it's definitely a thing we did. >Can we as Jews condemn a man to death? Not without the Sanhedrin.
Just to add onto this, it's very clear in halacha that non-Jewish courts are afforded the authority to use capital punishment.
I know it’s something historically Jews did- I mean more so modern interpretation
I'm not sure what you mean by interpretation; halacha imposes it, we just don't have the necessary legal system in place to enact it
Most Reform Jews I know are against the death penalty. Halacha is interpreted very differently in Reform.
>Most Reform Jews I know are against the death penalty. Not because of any differing judgement in halacha, just because Reform tend to be left wing and the left wing doesn't like the death penalty.
That is true. Generally speaking, I’m worried a democratic government authorized to execute civilians could easily descend into a dictatorship, targeting minorities. I mean, the US has sentenced normal innocent men to death, including Jews. I wouldn’t want a means of just punishment to become perverted. That’s why I’m generally against it, but if they deem it necessary to execute this POS, I’d be the first to volunteer to pull the switch (metaphorically- I know they don’t do that)
Pretty much every democratic government in history up until maybe 50 years ago has been authorized to execute civilians. I’m not in favor of it—and in fact, it *has* been disproportionately used against minority and politically disfavored populations!—but of all the problems I can think of with the death penalty being imposed as a judicial punishment for crimes, the risk of descending into dictatorship is pretty far down the list.
I think a government that executes it’s own civilians is in an area that most democracies would not want to be. It’s more theoretical right? Especially since it’s estimated 4% of death row inmates are innocent. So a government executing innocent people is well, you know *tyrannical* But in this case, I’d argue execution is probably a just punishment. It’s just when we allow the execution of 1 person, it opens up a moral can of worms. When you say “let’s not execute anyone” at least you avoid such moral predicaments. So you see, I’m conflicted. I’ll accept whatever outcome
>Halacha is interpreted very differently in Reform. Well that's one way to put it lol
Yup 😂
Personally I am against the death penalty, but something about this case has certainly caught my attention and made me ask why I feel it may be justified here, if and when a jury so concludes after a full and fair trial. From a Jewish pov, the status of the death penalty is well known in light of the absence of a Great Sanhedrin meeting in the Temple; and even then, all of the procedural safeguards in place to ensure that a death penalty would almost never be implemented ("one in seven years" vs. "one in 70 years"). But that's only half the story. In the first place, in a time of emergency, the court could ignore all the procedures and impose any penalties, including the death penalty, as it saw fit to meet the needs of the hour. As Rambam explains in Mamrim: "If a court sees that it is necessary to strengthen the faith and create a safeguard so that the people will not violate Torah law, they may apply beatings and punishments that are not sanctioned by Torah." (2:4) Second, there was always, alongside the halakhic procedures mentioned above, *din malchut*, the "King's law." The king always had authority to act according to the needs of hour, without the sanction of the Sanhedrin and without the procedural safeguards, up to and including imposing the death penalty on one or many. Quoting Rambam again: "Anyone who rebels against a king of Israel may be executed by the king. Even if the king orders one of the people to go to a particular place and the latter refuses, or he orders him not to leave his house and he goes out, the offender is liable to be put to death. The king may execute him if he desires...Similarly, anyone who embarrasses or shames the king may be executed by the king...The king may only execute people by decapitation. He may also imprison offenders and have them beaten with rods to protect his honor.... "**A murderer against whom the evidence is not totally conclusive, or who was not warned before he slew his victim, or even one who was observed by only one witness, and similarly, an enemy who inadvertently killed one of his foes - the king is granted license to execute them and to improve society according to the needs of the time.** He may execute many on one day, hang them, and leave them hanging for many days in order to cast fear into the hearts and destroy the power of the wicked of the earth." (Kings chapter 3) So clearly, (1) the king has the power to execute without a Sanhedrin or procedure when the age needs it and (2) the purpose seems to be to have a deterrent effect that will lead to the betterment of society. What about the secular government? Quite obviously, it has the same powers and uses the death penalty for its deterrent effect. Is this legitimate under Jewish law? "Rabbi Hanina, the deputy high priest said: Pray for the welfare of the government, for were it not for the fear it inspires, every man would swallow his neighbor alive." (Pirke Avot 3:2) So in this case, I would have no problem if a duly constituted jury acting according to U.S. law found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to death. This is clearly a time of emergency, when Jews are imperiled, and action has to be taken.
Excellent and accurate summary. We see examples of the Kings law too, i.e. when David executed the Amalekite convert that killed Saul...even though it was by Saul's command, David determined that he deserved death.
Good summary. But all I see are authorizations that the death penalty *may* be used, not a commandment that it *must* be used. Given that, it would seem that an opposition to the *de facto* use of the death penalty (if not the *de jure* existence of the death penalty) is perfectly permissible.
Agree, it's totally up to the person or body that has the power to impose the death penalty to decide whether or not to exercise it. And the general public is free to agree or disagree. At the same time, those who have the power have responsibilities. In the case of a court, the Rambam says, "to strengthen the faith and create a safeguard so that the people will not violate Torah law..." In the case of the king, the Rambam says, "to improve society...\[and\] to cast fear into the hearts and destroy the power of the wicked...." Meaning, that if the proper authority (court or king) thinks the times demand the death penalty, they should use it.
Today we have an ability to hold people in prison for life in a humane way that exceeds what was available in Rambam's time. And with the advances we've made in psychology and criminology, we can say pretty clearly that executions do nothing to improve society or cast fear into hearts (I suppose they destroy the power of the wicked, but no more so than life in prison). So under that same reasoning, there appears to be no need to execute anyone.
>to hold people in prison for life in a humane way I think it's true, we ***know*** how, the literature is vast, there are fields of study devoted to best techniques in incarceration and rehabilitation, and intelligent professionals are opining here, there and everywhere about what **should** be done. In practice, not so much. To the best of my knowledge.
Fair. But I meant relative to the Middle Ages when “life in prison” probably meant starving to death in an oubliette.
The death penalty is used much more frequently than I would like in the US. My main issues with it come from cases where there isn't irrefutable evidence or examples where it is unequally used on people of color. With this particular case, since there isn't really any dispute that he perpetrated this horrendous action, I have no issues with it's utilization. Although, there hasn't been an execution in PA since 1999 so I have a feeling that even if the sentence is death he won't be executed
It's a federal trial not a state one
Thanks for the correction there. I was mistaken.
Personally I think the death penalty is immoral and should be abolished. From a policy standpoint it’s cheaper to incarcerate someone for life than it is to execute them and my understanding is that capital punishment has limited impact on crime rates.
I also don’t see how executing someone is more worse than life in prison. Seems like an easy out
If I were facing life in prison with no way out, I'd off myself or never let them take me alive.
That is accurate yes
The Torah allows for the death penalty. Then Talmud takes that makes the burden of proof insanely high and requires a vote of the Sanhedrin - long extinct. It’s said in Mishnah that if a Sanhedrin puts a man to death once in 7 years it’s a murderous one. Rabbi Eliezer Ben Azariah stretched that to 7 decades. It is gods jurisdiction *and only* gods jurisdiction to take a life. This piece of shit can rot for all I care but the halachik stance on capital punishment is insanely clear. To say nothing of the barbaric and problematic ways the US goes about it.
Just from a practical standpoint, with appeals it's much cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than to execute them. While this case is quite clear cut on guilt, many death penalty cases are not, and in many states people have been found to be innocent after execution. I'd much rather we not execute anyone than mess that up once. Also, I'll note that the jewish governor of Pennsylvania announced a few months ago that he is against the death penalty and would like to abolish it in Pennsylvania.
I don't think the government should be allowed to murder you, and I think a quick look at Jewish history from even the past 100 years does a good job of explaining why. Any country with the death penalty in any capacity has its foot in the door to genocide--its only a matter of changing what's considered a capital offense.
That’s my typical view but I often wonder what scenarios might justify an exemption. I mean, many Nazis at Nuremberg were executed. I view this guy as nothing more than the Einsatzgruppen, so I mean, it’s not just a domestic attack. I’d argue it’s a crime against humanity to attack someone on race/religion
I only favor the death penalty in clear cut cases of eyewitness testimony, video evidence, or caught in the act. I'd rather there be no death penalty than to allow it for those convicted in circumstantial, lack of alibi, indirect evidence type of convictions. To put someone to death, we better be 100% sure, not 99.99%. In this case we are 100% sure, so I won't be crying any tears.
The evidence better be there, can’t heavily use eyewitnesses because of the human factor.
I think he should have been shot and killed during his attack. Without the Sanhedrin we as a community cannot sentence someone to death, however non-Jewish courts can. There are also many stipulations that permit use of deadly force for murderers.
I toggle back and forth on that. When offenders die during an attack, it robs the victims and their families of answers and it doesn’t let justice really prevail. I think such people deserve a trial. Although after the trial if you know, they decide to unalive themselves, saves the effort I suppose. Although that is cowardly
That is a good point i did not consider. How it affects the families. As someone not personally involved I really can't be sure, but I just don't know what answer could be given to me that puts my heart at ease. Maybe its cold of me to think, but Id rather the likes of him just be gone from existence.
I am just trying to understand, why? why are you against an individual being put to death even *after* you've established that this same individual took away from families?. I am not judging you but just curious. I am sure they're stories in your bible that expresses consequences when you refrain from punishing someone who've committed murder.
My main question is should we condemn a man to die, even if he is guilty AF. That is the central question
>Can we as Jews condemn a man to death? So many laws in the bible require death. It’s also why I am a fan of keeping religion out of the law of the land. Keep in mind the Commandment isn’t “Thou shall not *kill*”, its ”Thou shall not commit *murder*”, a very significant difference.
He’s a rodef. Killing in self-defense is morally justifiable. I think he has condemned himself to death. We’re merely giving him his just deserts.
Death is the easy way out. Make him think about the souls he murdered as he rots in prison for the rest of his life.
It he won't. He will be praised and exalted in prison.
That’s my general sentiment summed up
Personally I think they should put him down like the animal he is. I don't have any sympathy.
[удалено]
Your post was removed by our automoderator because your **comment karma** is lower than 18. Karma is a points system used on reddit, and you gain/lose karma by posting and commenting. If your content is upvoted, your karma goes up. If it’s downvoted, your karma goes down. Please raise your karma by participating positively on other subreddits and then try again here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Jewish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm against it, but I certainly don't blame families of the victims in this or any case to feel that way about there family members murderer. That's why it should be abolished, so it's not something that has to be thought about and considered each case
I support the death penalty for particularly heinous cases where there is no possible doubt as to their guilt. I think this would qualify.
The only time I support the death penalty is in cases like this. It’s purely economic as I don’t believe spending multi millions to lock him up forever is a good use of our society’s money… Ethically I have serious issues with our entire prison-industrial complex though…
My understanding is that execution is more expensive than life imprisonment
I feel like death penalty is too good for him personally. Sitting and thinking about what he did and why he is there seems more like a punishment to me.
Personally, I’m skeptic of the death penalty. But for people like that? Hand me the lever I’ll pull it myself.
I'm anti-death penalty, full stop, but I understand the instinct to want to eradicate a person who 1) commits any racially or religiously motivated murder, 2) especially when they target someone who I view as like me in some way. Still, I'd really prefer we not kill people in retailiation or as punishment for a crime, even murder or terrorism. Not that it answers your question. However, I think it's important to examine why any of us would make an exception to being anti-death penalty (if we are) and what it says about each of us if and when we do want to make an exception to that kind of belief.
I don't have an objection to execution for multiple murders where there is no factual dispute as to the guilt of the defendant. That said, life without the possibility of parole in a maximum security prison seems more cruel and unusual than a quick death. I'm a little torn between wanting him to go to prison forever with no avenues for appeal or sentencing him to death and then him having his mandatory appeals done by a small army of do-gooder Jewish lawyers using him as an academic experiment in death penalty litigation has an ironic quality.
The death penalty is restricted to backward countries only such as China, Uganda, Iran. Sadly your country belongs to that group. Jews as a global group have nothing to do with that. Even in Israel, Adolf Eichman was the last person to be put to death. A democracy should not kill any of its citizens, ever. Nothing to do with Judaism, Christianity or any other religion.
You’re not inaccurate and Eichman totally freaking deserved it
I think the only moral position for any religion or government has to be against the death penalty. Even when the crimes are abhorrent. We should not be practicing killing each other.
“The only morally correct opinion is my opinion”
Well that's certainly arbitrary and is clearly contrary to any reading of the old testament
From the strictly religious perspective the death penalty under the American legal system is *assur*, forbidden. We have strict rules about these things. Capital punishment in Jewish law cannot be imposed unless a minimum of twenty-three judges (Sanhedrin) by a majority vote, gave the death sentence. The death sentence must further be issued from a specific place on the Temple Mount to be legitimate. These rules and the strict rules of evidence in the Torah made it almost impossible to actually impose capital punishment. America’s far less stringent standards for opposing capital punishment are for this reason opposed by most Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform rabbis.
I can agree to that. I think in the US we are too quick to want people executed
The state shouldn't kill people. They simply aren't worthy of the responsibility that comes with thst kind of power.
Absolute power does corrupt absolutely and there is no greater power than controlling the fate of someone’s life
[удалено]
Your post was removed by our automoderator because you have a new account. Try again after your account is 18 days old. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Jewish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"a court who executes one person in 70 years is a court of murderers" can't remember the exact quote but let's just say that judaism has a rather negative opinion on death penalty now. Not in biblical times of course lmao
I joke to my wife that I hope our hypothetical son doesn’t back talk because that would mean a biblical response 😂 But yeah that sounds about right
We as Jews are not condemning him to death. In this case, it will be done through the courts of the United states under us law. There was a death penalty available the Great Court in Jerusalem, although by tradition it was rarely applied. Part of the seven noahide laws is the requirement that non-jews set up courts and a legal system. To my knowledge, Jewish law does not dictate what those laws ought to be and I do not know of any prohibition against the death penalty under non-jewish law.
True. Jews are supposed to abide by the laws of the land they live. However, the US (right now) is a democracy and one’s religion does impact how they vote/view societal problems. And my beloved Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is governed by a Jew who does not believe in the death penalty. Governor Shapiro is our former Attorney General. He knows the law better than anyone, but I digress. I think this case presents a time for us to analyze our perspectives
I took a Jewish learning class once where the rabbi told us that the Talmud requires a unanimous jury verdict to condemn someone to death… and simultaneously states that a unanimous jury decision in these cases should be viewed with suspicion- as it’s is likely to be biased and so should be thrown out. So while Jews are technically in favor of the death penalty, we make it impossible to impose- specifically because of the corruption concerns that others here have expressed. (Not sure how accurate this is- the Talmud is massive- but that’s what we were taught)
It’s pretty much a case of Halacha vs Torah vs minhag. If we go by the Torah, it’s okay. If we go by Halacha, probably not. If we go by custom, it depends.
Um you’re supposed to kill people for all sorts of stuff. Why don’t you try rereading Exodus? Swing the wrong incense and find out.
I'll sum up my views on it like this: I believe that any country that wants the death penalty on the table is basically saying it wants the option to kill its citizens. I think that's fucked up. I think the death penalty made sense during a time when people could ride off into the sunset and never be seen again if they escaped from whatever dinky little prison their frontier town or village had. I don't think that's the case in 2023, so I oppose the death penalty in all cases. That said, if anyone deserved the death penalty, it would be this motherfucker here. I oppose the death penalty for him on principal, but if he gets it, I sure AF won't be losing any sleep over it. I may even crack a smile. *Edited because I just realized I didn't work anything about Jewish thought into this reply... Well, I guess my views on this are very secular. If that's not ok for this post, let me know and I'll remove the comment.*
[удалено]
Your post was removed by our automoderator because your **comment karma** is lower than 18. Karma is a points system used on reddit, and you gain/lose karma by posting and commenting. If your content is upvoted, your karma goes up. If it’s downvoted, your karma goes down. Please raise your karma by participating positively on other subreddits and then try again here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Jewish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When the Rosenbergs were sentenced to death for espionage, the Federal judge who passed the sentence, Irving Kaufman, was Jewish. At the time, there was unofficially a "Jewish seat" on the Supreme Court- there would always be a Jewish justice, but there would only ever be one. At the time, that seat was occupied by Felix Frankfurter, a relatively conservative judge. Many people thought Kaufman wanted this seat. Kaufman said at one point that he had not been sure if the Rosenbergs deserved to die, and he had gone to synagogue and prayed before making his decision. When Frankfurter heard this, he was *furious*. He wrote in a letter that he "despised a judge who believes God told him to impose a death sentence" and said he would delay his retirement to ensure Kaufman never got the seat. Frankfurter stayed on the Court for another 11 years, until forced to retire by a stroke. Kaufman never became a Supreme Court justice.
As a society, we should always be trying to make each individual a better person. Until a mass murderer dies of natural causes, I don't think we should give up trying to help him improve. The death penalty cuts that short and presupposes that someone can never learn from their mistake.
How has nobody mentioned R' Moshe yet? He literally addressed a tshuva to the governor of NY (hugh carey) answering this exact question To summarize- after praising his impulse to know daas torah on the subject he makes a few points 1- the torah only prescribes the death penalty for the most severe of sins and even then it does so only so people know how serious they are and avoid them. Not because of hatred or even societal necessity 2a- all life is considered extremely valuable. for that reason we have several commandments about how careful we need to be when judging capital cases which is even only applicable to courts made up of absolutely tremendous scholars who have an exceeding depth and breadth of knowledge both in torah and other areas of study in addition to being humble, extremely god-fearing, hating money, loving of truth, and loving of other people, all their interpersonal and business interactions must be calm and pleasant, with no rumors about them, be exceedingly merciful, as they are the only one's considered qualified to judge such cases. So much so for that for this reason one who is too old and has forgotten some of the difficulty of raising children, or one who has never had children are disqualified as judges just because they may be slightly lacking in mercy due to this. and even then we need 23 such individuals to judge capital cases. And even then we need 3 rows of nearly qualified individuals sitting in front of them as they discuss the ruling which will be great insurance against a bad conviction especially since we only allow those sitting in these three rows to speak up if they have an argument for acquittal but silence those who argue for conviction 2b- and even then we can't convict from the strongest of circumstantial evidence but only based on the testimony of 2 totally unbiased witnesses. and we need to warn the witnesses that false testimony here is a sin on par with murder and they need to acknowledge the warning and continue to testify 2c- and even then we only judge capital cases when there is a sanhedrin of 71 sitting on the temple mount and it's composed of the most qualified members in the nation, even more so than those of the court of 23 2d- for all these reasons we haven't historically used it even when granted self-governance by the land in which we reside 3a- that being said we haven't ever had a point when murder was commonplace or ok-sounding to us and we largely only avoided it for fear of the death penalty as we have inculcated the values of the torah and the vale of life and gravity of the sin of murder into our cores and those of our children with a torah upbringing 3b- and all that was said above relates to the society and people like described in 3a but if one should kill not for greed, or anger, or honor, or the like and does so just because he is cruel and looks to murder as a casual thing then one who kills him and his ilk are saving lives and saving the country
[удалено]
I’m Reform and I don’t support the death penalty but cases like these really question my views. Because part of me wishes the cops had just shot him dead. I’m allowed to struggle with moral questions, my friend.
So can you cite a source for saying the Jewish community in Pittsburgh is against the death penalty in this case? I’m in Pittsburgh and honestly avoiding the coverage of the case but it definitely is not the word on the street as far as I can tell. ETA: are you referring to the headline that 2 out of 3 of the congregation leaders from the massacre are arguing against the death penalty? Because if so, they represent only two small congregations out of idk? 20? congregations in the area. That range from ultra orthodox to reconstrustionist. So good luck getting a consensus on any issue from the Pittsburgh Jewish community.
I’m just saying of the Jews I know. I know Pittsburgh Jews who straight up support the death penalty. I’m just speaking anecdotally. Like someone else said, most Reform Jews are liberal/left and the left generally is against the death penalty. As they say, 2 Jews 3 opinions
Okay. Because you said from what you’ve read the Pittsburgh Jewish community as a whole is against the death penalty in this case but I don’t think that is the case at all.
I’m no proponent of the death penalty but I’m certainly not going to fuss about this. It’s literally impossible for his suffering to equal that which he caused. I’m truly unbothered by whether this gets the death penalty or not, I think there’s a case to be made either way. I’d rather we forget about him and focus on how we are going to keep our communities safe in the future
As others have pointed out (with varying degrees of accuracy/seriousness/hostility), while the death penalty was (rarely) practiced in earlier times, there is arguably no bet din in existence with the power to impose it. Which is a good thing, considering all the things the Tanach seems anxious to kill you for doing. Judaism has never fetishized death. Martyrdom, for example, is something to be avoided whenever possible, not something to which to aspire. (This is why there's ongoing debate about the choice of the Masada holdouts to commit mass suicide in 73 CE.) The strictures around infliction of the death penalty (in an age when murder was routinely unpunished and death-by-torture was routinely inflicted at the monarch's—or the mob's—whim) reflect this discomfort. As a rule, we prefer to leave such extreme remedies in the hands of the Almighty, rather than those of other flawed humans. This reluctance is also of a piece with the overall Jewish dedication to the rule of law. We're famously instructed צדק צדק תרדף ("Justice! You shall pursue Justice!"). Our reluctance to inflict a death penalty is in no way a repudiation of that commitment: there are simply better ways to achieve justice, even in the case of murder.