From: lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
Subject: Death Penalty & Jewish Law
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 02:28:27 GMT

lazarus@wixer.cactus.org responds to 
  > hillel@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (hillel.e.markowitz), Jul 28 1992   
  >    10:32 CDT responding to
       >> lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (sorry, don't remember the date)

>....Life, even human life, while ranking highly is not the highest
>value.  The Torah mandates that one must give up ones life for
>three things (Idol Worshp, Ervah - usually translated as sexual
>immorality, and Murder).  When the Torah mandates the death
>penalty, it does not say unless the criminal can be rehabilitated. 
>The Torah declares that the murderer must be taken from the altar
>of Hashem if necessary to carry out the sentence.

Nice twist.  I was taught that you could break Shabbat, even a
fast, if your life was at risk.  And what about the story of a
father and son in the desert?  If the son has the water, he is
directed to use it all in order that he might live, rather than
risk both their lives.  I have always been more interested in the
spirit of Judaism, rather than the strict letter of the law.  Too
often, the Torah contradicts itself or at least brings items into
question.  And while the Torah is an important _part_ of Judaism,
Jews do not rely entirely on it for our law.


>>writer of the previous post considers unfair murder to be fair. 
>>The death penalty is *not* a punishment, in any case.

>According to the Torah, the death penalty is a mandated punishment
>under the appropriate circumstances.

Nice bit of cyclic logic.  "The Torah says so, therefore it is." 
A "punishment" is intended to 'correct' - the death penalty does no
such thing.  Furthermore, since when is a punishment the same type
of action taken by a criminal?


>>I would be *very* interested in learning why a Jew would consider
>>murder an acceptable solution to ANY problem.  Many Jews are
>>vegeterians because they

>If someone is in the category of rodef (chasing someone to kill
>them), the Torah *requires* you to kill him.  The Torah
>specifically says that if you catch a sneak thief in the house at
>night (note this is a simplification of the full halachos) you are
>allowed to kill him because he would probably kill you in order to
>get away undetected.

The death penalty has _NOTHING_ to do with self-defense.  While
killing a thief might be a bit overzealous, I can understand the
fear that most people would have with a stranger invading their
home.  A person locked up in prison is not likely to be a "sneak
thief" in your home.


>A Jewish vegetarian should not be one because he is
>"uncomfortable".  The reasons are many, including the treatment of
>the animals before they are slaughtered, but they do not involve
>raising an animal above the status of a human being.  THeir have
>been threads before this on the subject and some of the posters
>have said it much better than I can.  However, I will point out
>that a Jewish vegetarian would still eat the meat of the required
>sacrifices.

I was not raising animals above the status of human beings; rather
I was suggesting that supporters of killing human beings for
vengeance reduce human beings to animals.  Also, while I do not
know the specifics of sacrifices (although I thought there had not
been any in two thousand years), I would _NOT_ eat the meat in that
situation.  Assuming, of course, that it would not be required to
kill a human for not killing an animal.


>>....Why are people so quick to turn human beings into
>>something less than animal?  Is Jewish law so steeped in
>>vengence?

>This is not a matter of vengeance, it is a matter of punishment.

Ad absurdium...


>>There is a wide variety of facts which indicate VERY STRONGLY
>>that the death penalty, in this or any country, is an unfair
>>abuse of government power that kills citizens.  It is arbitrary,
>>it is expensive (costs at least twice as much as the death
                                                       ^^^^^
>>penalty), it kills INNOCENT PEOPLE (I assume the previous 
  ^^^^^^^
  (SORRY, this should be "life imprisonment") - msl

>I am not sure what you meant about the expense.  You said that the
>death penalty is twice as expensive as the death penalty.  I
>assume you mean that the repeated appeals etc of implementing the
>death penalty is more expensive than the non-death penalty trials.
>However, this is an argument that we are willing to spend money to
>try to ensure we do it right.

I meant that the ritual of killing people costs twice as much as
life imprisonment.  This does _NOT_ mean endless appeals, but
rather only the first appeal.  Costs of investigation, jury
selection, prosecution, etc., are all many times more expensive in
a case where the state is trying to kill someone.  And while Mr.
Markowitz claims we need to make sure we're "doing it right," many
people think we're already spending too much money.  The Supreme
Court seems to feel that even when a death sentence is arrived at
in clearly unfair circumstances it should still be carried out. 
Most people - not all, granted - that support the death penalty
want to spend less money and make it even less fair than it already
is.


>The implementation of a penalty is not an argument against the
>penalty.  If the results are racially skewed thaen perhaps we
>should apply it *more* to all the criminals convicted of capital
>crimes, not less.

Let's kill even more people?  Interesting thought, but how do you
intend to accomplish this gruesome task?  "We" do not sentence
people to death - prosecutors and district attorneys do.  A lot of
them are from racist communities who don't care about racial
fairness.  And we are not just talking about the "implementation of
a penalty," we are taking about killing people.  I feel that
killing people that are not an IMMEDIATE and DIRECT threat is
abominable.  Would you suggest we return to torturing people? 
Surely we could ensure that such torture was meted out fairly to
all?  Certain acts are so brutal that no matter how much we try to
de-brutalize it we are unsuccessful.


>>Jew forget the last time the death penalty was used against us?

>Just because murderers called themselves legal and what they were
>doing as the death penalty does not mean that we cannot apply the
>penalty correctly.  It is as if we said that because the Soviets
>locked innocent people up in the Gulag or abused the psychiatric
>hospital system we should not lock up criminals or maintain mental
>health facilities.  Any system is subject to abuse.  the correct
>response is to try to eliminate the abuses, not discard the
>system.

This response is almost amusing.  We can kill better?  Our reasons
for killing citizens are somehow more pristine?  Yet we kill many
of the same people that the Nazis killed:  the severely mentally
ill and mentally retarded, the poor and illiterate, those in our
society considered "undesirable."  Psychiatry's main purpose is to
help people; the death penalty's only objective is to kill people. 
I don't see why a "system" with this objective should not be
discarded.


>The debate in the Mishna and the Gemoroh is not on whether or not
>the death penalty is correct but on whether or not it is being
>applied correctly.  No one doubts that the death penalty is the
>correct punishment for certain crimes.

Obviously _SOME_ people (or am I - and others that oppose state
killing, including a few of the sages - not people?) doubt that
government killing is an appropriate response to individual
killing.  And while some debated the death penalty's implementation
in certain cases, others argued it should be banned outright - for
any crime.

The death penalty is a ritual of DEATH.  No matter how much you try
and shroud it as morally righteous, killing is killing. 
Governments have given all sorts of "good" reasons to kill
citizens.  "They deserve it" is the most frequent excuse - whether
"they" be criminals, political prisoners, journalists, or Jews. 
While I may have been mislead all my life about what it means to be
Jewish by my loving parents and religous instructors, it is this
"misleading," in great part, which instilled in me a sense for life
and fairness which is the basis for my opposition to state killing. 
Many people, not just Mr. Markowitz, have all but suggested that I
cannot be Jewish and oppose the death penalty.  I would like to
know how these people feel I should change my concern for life? 
Should I stop caring?  Should I ignore the facts?  Should I only
care about how governments and religions should express their
distaste for individual killing by implementing government killing? 
And would they consider Ellie Weizel, who also strongly opposes the
death penalty, to be as unJewish as me?


>The Gemoroh states that he who is kind when he is supposed to be
>cruel will be cruel when he is supposed to be kind.  Shaul left
>Agag alive which led to Haman.  He was punished for this by losing
>the kingdom.

So we should base executions on the fact that _maybe_ the person we
execute instead of imprison will destroy the world based on one
tractate in the Gemoroh (of which you have most likely only
represented one argument), as well as brand as morally
reprehensible those that do not wish to kill?  I am also trying to
figure out how Agag led to Haman.  I believe somebody mentioned
Haman was his progeny, but I am not certain.  If _this_ is the
case, perhaps we should require sterilization of any "questionable"
elements in society, trying to identify them when they're still
children.  I have heard over and over that we should not get rid of
state killing just because innocent people are tortured and die or
because it's blatantly racist.  These same folk now hold up Agag as
"the" reason we should not just have the death penalty, but support
it!  Pardon me while I check the definition of "hypocrite" :->.

lazarus@wixer.cactus.org
Michael Lax
12514 Esplanade St., #B
Austin, TX 78727-4409