The appropriate treatment for Ezra Sheinberg
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to ask how you think Ezra Sheinberg should be treated.
He is moving to Katzrin without making a reply, as far as I understand (which is mainly fueled by allegations made by activists protesting against him).
Statistics say that 75% of sex offenders reoffend, and even more so among those who have not expressed remorse.
Now I will focus the question a bit:
I think that the issue of paying the debt to society is irrelevant (what does that even mean?) and therefore asks – why should *he* have the benefit of the doubt that he might not sin in the future and not the potential victims? (For example, in the case where he went to prison for the rest of his life and so every future victim would have the benefit of the doubt). What’s more, the statistics are probably against him.
The argument is raised that he needs to live somewhere, and therefore even if the protest is justified, there is no better solution.
Even the idea of ostracism could still allow him some access to weaker victims, and once again the question arises, why give him any chance? Why give him a chance for an answer at the expense of someone who will pay the price?
The bottom line is that I have no idea of a concrete course of action, and I also wanted to ask if you have any objections to that.
Summary of the questions:
A. Why give him a chance? (A theoretical question because I wasn’t asked..)
B. What do you think is the right thing to do practically?
Thank you very much.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Protests against him are to send a message to other women to be more careful.
Fear of other people always exists.
Anyway, I don't know if it's true or not, but I understood that in the prison where he was imprisoned, there were guards who actually asked him for blessings. So he probably still has an influence, and not just on women.
Regarding the danger to the public, time will tell. I hope you are right, even though there are a thousand ways to hurt. But the truth is that the second part of the question interests me more - why is it legitimate, in the name of the possibility of an answer, to let a person return to the "space of the offense" when others will pay the price?
What is “letting a person return”? The space is his just like everyone else's. There is no danger here, as the rabbi explained, because all his power is in words, and a wise person should not trust him after his actions are known. So you are essentially saying that in your opinion the punishment for such an act should not amount to prison but rather exile from the city. This is a legitimate claim, but it should be said openly, and the law should be changed accordingly.
“Anyone who believes him and lets him hurt her deserves to be hurt””
Shame on you for responding. No woman deserves to be raped or sexually assaulted!
Father, I'm not saying, I'm just asking. I don't know what the right attitude is and I assume that he can hurt someone in the future and that he is responsible for his actions even if it's someone weak/stupid/whatever you want. And again the question comes up – what moral justification allows a criminal to have the benefit of the doubt that he might repent or might not when there is someone who can pay the (heavy) price and one could say that the odds are against him. For the sake of clarity, I'll say that this specific story doesn't really interest me (there are a million other problematic stories, but for some reason this one overwhelmed me).
After I'm ashamed, I'll go back and write that if someone believes him and lets him hurt her after everything that's been made public about him - then she definitely deserves it. And I wrote that a fool who is not responsible for her actions should be excluded. A responsible person does not enter a place where there are broken bones, and even God Almighty does not save him (as is known, the Talmud says that the messengers of a mitzvah are not harmed because they are protected by God Almighty. But if there are broken bones, there is no guaranteed protection).
Of course, this does not mean that Sheinberg should not be judged if he does so. I'm talking about her contributing guilt.
The same debate took place in the talkbacks for column 117.
I'll try one last time because somehow I get a response to everything except what really interests me – What is the moral justification for releasing the wolf to prey? And more details in my comments above
Maybe you didn't read it, but it was answered. There is no justification for releasing him at the cost of harm. But there will be no harm unless there is a woman who behaves in a particularly stupid way. Then she deserves it.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
