Q&A: The Death Penalty for Murderers
The Death Penalty for Murderers
Question
What do you think about the death penalty for murderers? Let’s assume a case where it is proven beyond any doubt that the defendant committed the murder. The only thing that maybe makes me hesitant is the fact that many people regret the murder they committed, and perhaps they really do have some other way to make amends for the murder even without causing their death.
Answer
If we’re talking about an ordinary cold-blooded murderer, my view is that there is no fundamental problem with it. There is room to pardon him if one sees genuine remorse.
Discussion on Answer
Nonsense.
Sorry, capital cases require twenty-three, and you need ordained judges; communal acceptance does not help.
And if you mean making a protective fence, as explained in the Shulchan Arukh, section 2, and in Maimonides of blessed memory: “All these murderers and the like, who are not liable to death by a religious court—if the king of Israel wishes to kill them under the law of the monarchy and for the repair of the world, he has the authority. Likewise, if a religious court sees fit to kill them as a temporary emergency measure—if the time requires it—they have authority according to what they see fit.
“But if the king did not kill them, and the time did not require it in order to strengthen the matter, then the religious court is nevertheless obligated to beat them severely, nearly to death, to imprison them under pressure and hardship for many years, and to afflict them with all kinds of suffering, in order to frighten and intimidate the other wicked people, so that the matter should not become for them a stumbling block and snare, and they should not say: I will arrange to kill my enemy the way so-and-so did, and I’ll get away with it.”
So if there is no king and the time does not require it [and of course not every murder is considered “the time requires it,” because if so then nothing would ever be needed and every religious court would always be allowed to kill them], there is no possibility of execution, only of causing them suffering and punishing them, but not killing them.
Wow, how did I not think of that? 🙂
Obviously we’re talking about the law of the king.
Because there is no king today—is that Bibi or Ben Gvir? (How do you make a smiley here?:)
How did you decide that? Is this authority only for an anointed king from the house of David? Obviously not. There is indeed a king today, just as the nations of the world have a king. The lawful ruler has the legal status of a king for this purpose.
Van Gogh — you mean death for terrorist murderers. Jewish murderers need a religious court of seventy-one, ordained judges, and of course qualified ones, not a civil court.