- This topic has 145 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Rav Moshe wrote in the same teshuva “there were almost no Jewish murderers because of the awareness of the severity of the prohibition of murder and because they were educated by means of the Torah and the punishments of the Torah to understand the seriousness of the crime.”
The translation — and it IS faithful to the Hebrew — was done by Rav Daniel Eidensohn, author of the Yad Moshe index to the Igros Moshe. My apologies for that omission.
i cant be bothered to read the whole thread…but here are my thoughts. i used to be a proponent of the death penalty…to the point where when martin grossman was up for his sentence i was one of the people shouting “kill the murderer”. when i told that to my charusa he set me straight, and i have been opposed ever since.
first of all, there is not a single court in the world that conducts itself according to halacha.
second of all if there were such courts (such as batei dinim which i was not referring to with the above statement) they would be following halacha b7y NOT carrying out death sentences b’zmanenu.
the majority of courts in the world accept circumstantial evidence, some more than others.
trial by one judge and no jury is vaday wrong.
trial by jury is meaningless. a jury trial is nothing more than winning an election. it is a popularity contest. if you can get the jury to like you enough, you win regardless of the culpability of your client, or lack thereof. that is NOT justice.
there is no way to GUARANTEE that the person is actually guilty seeing as circumstantial evidence is accepted and most witnesses in murder trials are bought in to build up a case, not testify to the actual murder. regardless of that according to halacha you have to have eidim, hasraah and intense drisha v’chakirah.
the world’s justice systems have in the past killed many innocent people. as long as there is another alternative, IE jail, it is wrong to sacrifice a few innocents for the guilty masses. on this point someone told me “lets kill them and let god sort it out” i said, “thats fine for god, but what about you”?
deterrent is irrelevant so i will not address it. this is not an issue of goyim vs jews, in terms of what non jewish society should allow, because death penalties in the entire world are each potential pikuach nefesh cases waiting to happen.
bombmaniac:
Where do you get this idea that goyish courts need to use our standards of evidence?
Also, even if they do, that would preclude them from giving jail sentences also.
Wolf-
In a case where a murderer does not meet all the halachic requirements for receiving the death penalty (e.g. only one witness, or a minor flaw in the hasro’oh) beis din would toss him in the brig and throw away the key. Not acquit.
Wolf-
In a case where a murderer does not meet all the halachic requirements for receiving the death penalty (e.g. only one witness, or a minor flaw in the hasro’oh) beis din would toss him in the brig and throw away the key. Not acquit.
Certainly not universally.
Of course, that also then refutes BT’s point about BD implementing a death sentence once in seven(ty) years. Ultimately, does it matter if they killed him through halachic or extra-halachic means?
The Wolf
Agreed, not universally. Only in a case where the murderer is proved guilty minus a halachic technicality.
I don’t agree with you that letting a prisoner rot (or starve) in prison is exactly the same as executing him. From a halachic standpoint, that is.
BT:
Could you send me a link (to the english translation site, or to buy a copy in english)?
Also Rav Moshe doesn’t actually say yes or no in that teshuva, correct?
Are you aware of any of the modern Gedolim who have been asked the question and have answered in the affirmative?
Thanks.
I don’t agree with you that letting a prisoner rot (or starve) in prison is exactly the same as executing him. From a halachic standpoint, that is. “
If he is an absolute chayav misah murderer, then keeping him in prison could actually be arguably WORSE than executing him, because the halacha is that someone upon whom the Sanhedrin has pronounced a death sentence, must be taken out to be executed immediately. The halacha is sensitive to the fact that being on Death Row could be emotionally terrifying to the one who knows he is to be executed, and is anticipating it to happen, but not knowing when. Even the worst murderer is to be shown the type of mercy that precludes causing him unnecessary anguish.
popa: they do NOT have to conform to our standards, however when it comes to the possibility of jewish lives being taken we do indeed have to worry. therefore when it comes to supporting the death penalty we do have to take a stand that is in accordance with halacha. martin grossman would not have been killed if there was no death penalty, and it is the people of a nation that decide such things.
as for jail sentences, no they are not desirable but we do have to be realistic, we are in galus and can not impose our justice system on the world. when it comes to jail which is not necessarily pikuach nefesh per se i would accept that as a lesser evil than the death penalty.
gavra: It’s not available in book form. Google his name, he puts it on his site, although its sporadic and mixed with many subjects. Yes about what? Rav Miller was also affirmative in this subject.
bombmaniac:
I don’t follow. If nobody has done anything wrong, no wrong is done.
If the courts are allowed to dispense justice as they see justice to be, their doing so is indeed proper.
We are not bothered when a jewish murderer is executed. We are bothered if the court acted improperly.
Our only job in this world is to do what G-d wants. G-d wants us to run our courts in a certain way, and for the goyim to run their courts in a certain way. The results are G-d’s job. (He does a good job.)
We are not bothered if we execute 1 million innocent people. We are bothered if we execute even one murderer, if the witnesses were brothers.
We are not bothered if the goyim execute myriads of innocent people. We are only bothered if they do things which are unjust.
I have no reason to believe that the American legal system is not reasonably just. They try their best; its pretty good. It’s not against halacha, and it’s not against my morals.
interesting…so the murder of innocent people is not against your morals…maybe we should get cynical in here so he can tell us if conservative has anything about that…
the people of a democratic country dictate its policy. it is one thing to falsely IMPRISON someone it is another to falsely EXECUTE them. you have to understand that while i am well aware of teh fact that we do not have our own independent jewish justice system in this country, and therefore we must rely on the secular courts to maintain law and order.
this does NOT mean that we should throw away all morality! a trial by jury is nothing more than a popularity contest. think about, you drag 12 people who were too dumb to get out of jury duty in the first place out of their la Z boys to sit and watch professional practitioners of the law parade in front of them smiling and trying to win them over. that is not justice it is mob rule. now…its true its what we have, but should we not try to keep it within reasonable boundaries?
as i said above, the people of a democracy define its laws, the more people are against the death penalty the more likely it is for states to abolish it. as for your ridiculous statement of “Our only job in this world is to do what G-d wants. G-d wants us to run our courts in a certain way, and for the goyim to run their courts in a certain way. The results are G-d’s job. (He does a good job.)” i say thats fine for god, but what about YOU?!?
who is to say that we are not upset of a jewish murderer is killed? first of all one is not chayav misa if tehy kill goyim, second of all before you trot out dina d’malchusa dina let me remind you that dina d’malchusa can be changed by popular sentiment in this country.
lock them up in jail for 25 years…go ahead, but dont kill them. it is not worth the lives of the few for the lives of the many. and for those that are guilty? as you said god will sort it out for himself!
by the way just to address the ridiculous argument of deterrant, first of all, do youi really thing the killer is in the proper frame of mind for that? lets analyze this:
1) a professional killer does not care about that. he is fully aware and money means more to him
2) a man who walks in on his wife cheating and blows his wife and the milkman away. is he really in the frame of mind?
3) a thug, or someone with a grudge who benefits nothing but the satisfaction of the death. do you really thing he will be sitting there pondering the pros and cons of either punishment? “hmm..maybe i shouldnt kill him, theyll kill me after 20 years of appeals and lots of red tape…whats that you say? the death penalty is abolished and teh penalty now is only 25 years to life in prison with no possibility of parole? shoot, NOW i’ll do it!” think about…its absolutely ridiculous. the death penalty for murder was never a deterrent, it was revenge and as i said, revenge is fine for the guilty but what about the innocents who have been killed?
We are not bothered if we execute 1 million innocent people.
Popa, please review Tanach. We are supposed to be bothered by the deaths of even guilty people (AKA the Egyptians at Yetzias Metzrayim).
BT:
gavra: It’s not available in book form. Google his name, he puts it on his site, although its sporadic and mixed with many subjects. Yes about what? Rav Miller was also affirmative in this subject.
Thank you.
Rav Miller, as great as he was, is not considered to be a posek of the yeshivish or chassidish world.
How about someone like Rav Moshe, Rav Ruderman, Satmer Rov, etc.?
bombmaniac
a trial by jury is nothing more than a popularity contest. think about, you drag 12 people who were too dumb to get out of jury duty in the first place out of their la Z boys
I think it’s a problem that people have this attitude, if CV one of us were to be on trial what are the chances that we can have a jury of our peers?
Recently when I had jury duty I used it as an opportunity to catch up on personal stuff (my employer gives us off for jury duty).
I met R’ Reuven Feinstein by Shachris, told him that I had jury duty and asked him for advice. His response was “If I could go why can’t you”. (My intended question was “What are my responsibilities as a Yid in a secular court?”)
By the way, I didn’t notice any other Frum people there.
Dr. P: Did you find the thug guilty? 🙂
I found him guilty based on his lawyers stupidity and arrogance but that was before jury selection. I wasn’t picked for the case though. (Supposedly if you stare down the defendant they remove you?)
“trial by one judge and no jury is vaday wrong”
The gemara in Sanhedrin explicitly says that it is permitted for Noachide courts.
Bombmaniac:
I think I was pretty clear. I’m not sure how you are misunderstanding me.
As far as deterrent. I have not contended that there is a deterrent value, look at my post on page one, about 4 posts down.
SJS: Yes, of course we are bothered by executing any people. What I meant is that we do not consider it an injustice based on the the person’s actual innocence or guilt, rather, we consider it injustice based on our following the procedures handed to us by the good L-rd.
Ok, I’ll put it differently.
Imagine you are a dayan in a capital case. There are two kosher eidim, and everything has been met. But, a bas kol says, “he didn’t do it.” Would you execute the innocent “murderer”? What would G-d want you to do?
When a goyish court uses standards which are allowed by G-d for them, the same is true. G-d wants them to execute the people they find guilty under standards which are acceptable for them. I am happy when G-d’s will is done. I hope you will be happy with me.
the point of my post is that it is NOT worth innocent lives for a useless system. it may be morally acceptable for murderers to be killed, but is it morally acceptable for innocents to be killed?
what i said about juries was not supposed to be an indication as to my stand on civic responsibility, it was simply saying that 12 unqualified people are fed a bunch of twisted facts by 2 highly trained shysters and told to deliberate a case and come up with a verdict. the system is clearly flawed. now…its true the torah allows for a death penalty, however nowhere does it require one to my knowledge, unless it is in a beis din operating in the times of the Sanhedrin.
your bloodlust and desire for revenge is comletely invalid grounds for the potential of innocent lives to be ended at the hands of an invalid system. all other punishments, if meted out without just cause can be rectified in one way or another. wrongful imprisonment and fines can be repaid monetarily, and while there are definitely things lost that can never be recovered, efforts can be made to rectify the wrongdoing sufficiently. from death however, there is no recovery.
now if we were dealing with a country that had not a single jew in it nor had the possibility of ever having jews in it, i would indeed support the death penalty for that country. let the goyim do what they want to each other. however when it comes to jewish lives i cannot abide by such a “justice” system.
Imagine you are a dayan in a capital case. There are two kosher eidim, and everything has been met. But, a bas kol says, “he didn’t do it.” Would you execute the innocent “murderer”? What would G-d want you to do?
Considering the fact that a conviction in Bais Din is not final until the execution is actually carried out, I might think that there may be grounds to re-open the case. Is HKBH worse than the condemned himself? If the condemned himself can re-open his case with new information, I think HKBH Himself can too.
The Wolf
Wolf:
I think you are incorrect. We don’t listen to bas kol’s. We just follow halacha. The halacha is you kill him. Like the tanur.
Bomb:
That is precisely what I am saying. Now we are talking. It is moral for innocents to be killed. !!!
We do kill people who are innocent, if halacha demands. Goyish courts are supposed to kill innocent people, if their legitimate legal system demands.
Morality is purely what halacha requires. For goyim, it is purely what the 7 mitzvos require.
As for your concern about jews being caught in their system, that is also what halacha requires- since the goyim are supposed to make systems. I cannot criticize anything which halacha requires. Neither should you.
Wolf:
I think you are incorrect. We don’t listen to bas kol’s. We just follow halacha. The halacha is you kill him. Like the tanur.
Ah, but I don’t think the two are congruous.
By the tanur, we’re dealing with an issue of what the halacha is. Here, we’re dealing with an issue of metzius — is he guilty? After all, he (and others) can continue to bring evidence even after the conviction is handed down. If new evidence comes to light that he is innocent, then he is set free, the previous conviction notwithstanding.
The Wolf
i have no idea where youre coming up with this stuff
“Considering the fact that a conviction in Bais Din is not final until the execution is actually carried out, I might think that there may be grounds to re-open the case.”
That is not necessarily the case under secular law; courts have ruled that even evidence of actual innocence is not necessarily relevant if it was not brought up at the original trial.
“It is moral for innocents to be killed.”
I call that murder.
And you’d likely be a lot less smug if it were a family member who had been wrongfully convicted.
“It is moral for innocents to be killed.”
I call that murder.
And you’d likely be a lot less smug if it were a family member who had been wrongfully convicted.
You should not call that murder. Murder in common law is an unlawful killing with malice aforethought. A killing sanctioned by the court is a lawful killing.
I would be less smug if my, say, wife, was wrongfully convicted. But I would be wrong. Not wrong to be upset, but wrong to think that it was immoral or murder.
Come now, do you consider every unfortunate result of a proper policy to be criminal? Would you indict the Canadian parliament on murder charges if someone’s medical care is delayed and he dies?
All I now is that I worked for former New York Governor Pataki. During the election to become governor he swore that he would reinstate the death penalty. After the victory however when it was time to get my payoff job and I requested the position of State Executioneer they said that I was crazy and that I should turn in my clearnece card to teh executive chambers. I still 17 years later fail to understand what I did so bad. I am still for the death penalty but not for legal murder. And unfortuantely that is what the death penalty means to me
In a case where someone has committed a capital crime deliberately, cruelly, and with extreme malice aforethought, with there being no question whatsoever as to guilt, I would execute the murderer. Punishing a killer by taking his life is NOT equal to legalized murder. And frankly, IMO the murderers are getting off fairly easily these days, as they go to sleep before they are humanely executed, something their terrorized victims usually did NOT experience.
This is a mass murderer, and the only way to get rid of the vermin that commit such atrocities, is to take them out of this world. Immediately. Our enemies should see this is the result when they are caught, that they are not left alive to be bargaining chips for Americans who are captured by them.
I am actually not fond of the idea of capital punishment, but I am also not so naive as to believe people who commit such horrific deeds deserve to live. The people they murdered also had lives. These remorseless monsters cannot be rehabilitated, and justice demands that they pay with their own lives for the ones they took. Unfortunately they can only die once. I can live with that. I certainly do not want my tax dollars spent on their incarceration. I am not a violent person by any means. But I am tired of tiptoeing around terrorists, not calling a spade a spade, and allowing them to literally get away with murder. Daniel Pearl’s blood cries out for justice, and now so do all the victims in Boston, in the Twin Towers, and in E”Y.
There is and should be no legal difference between an 18 year old and a 22 year old. I would argue further that the death penalty should be available for teenage murderers and traitors under the age of 18. Whether one victim or multiple.
I’d say 13. The Constitution doesn’t preclude severe punishments of criminals and murderers under 18. (Even if some bleeding heart judges legislated from the bench some such theory.)
I think he should be executed. Do I think it will happen? No, not in this country. If he was 16 I would say no to the death penalty, but the truth is 18,19,20 it’s all the same. He is legally an adult. Now the better question is, what is going to happen to him considering you cannot be put to dead of you are injuries or sick. Now I know people can be on death row for years upon years, but from what I have heard, he sustained life long injuries.
2 points:- a) As for the older brother, we saved a lot of taxpayer’s money with his death, considering that it costs approximately $60,000 per prisoner per annum to the taxpayer. This in addition to court case expenses and security surrounding court case.
b) As for the 2nd brother, he should be placed in a human size pressure cooker, and heat up this pressure cooker, and let his fait be a deterrent to all would be attackers;
I like this new legal test that the frum world seems to have adopted. We can call it the Rubashkin/Grossman rule. Under this rule, no Orthodox Jew can be penalized for crimes as long as there is any non-Jew who received a lesser sentence for similar crimes. So if someone in New York stole $300m and got 22 years, then a Jew who stole $247m in North Dakota cannot receive a sentence of greater than 22 years.
Also, any non-Jew who commits a crime will need to be sentenced to a harsher penalty than whatever penalty a Jew who committed an analogous crime received. Nowadays, the most recent Jewish murderer has been Martin Grossman. So any non-Jew who kills, must receive the death penalty.
FWIW, I don’t have any interest in seeing Dzokhar get the death penalty. What will it do for me? It won’t bring back the people who died, or heal the wounded. If you care about the victims, make a donation to them; it will help a lot more than railing about the death penalty on Facebook. The impulse for revenge is a childish one, and should not be encouraged.
you think the Torah’s prescription for murderers is a matter of “revenge” and “childish”??
I can’t hope to understand the depths of the Torah’s wisdom. But I can say what motivates the people in the US who currently support the death penalty. And yes, even those who blame it on the Torah.
So far a criminal justice is concerned, there is no requirement for any government court, Jewish or non-Jewish, to conform to the standards of a sanhedrin. This was only for a time when Am Yisrael are all tzaddikim and crime is extremely rare (Maharal Chiddushei Aggadot Makkot 7a). In other times it is necessary for the government to establish its own standards in order to prevent anarchy (Ran Derasha 11 and Igerot Moshe Choshen Mishpat 2:68). This is especially true of murderers, who may be executed even where the Tora exempts them from punishment by the bet din (Rambam Hilchot Rotzeach 2:4 and Hilchot Melachim 9:14).Thus David HaMelech ordered the ger Amaleki executed on his confession alone (Shmuel Bet 1:14).This is not revenge but both for the protection of society (Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s response to Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon, Mishna Makkot 2:10) and to enable the murderer to atone (by being executed).
Obviously, great care must be taken not to execute an innocent person but in a case where there is no doubt or virtually no doubt it is definitely in order.
So far as serving on a jury is concerned, in many cases they only rule on guilt or innocence and the judge decides the sentence.In any case, in view of the above I would think that it is davka a mitzva to serve on a jury in a criminal case.
i personally think torture is worse. because if they get killed its over in a matter of moments. torture will really teach them their lesson.
Avi, if I had the slightest thought that the death penalty was in fact a deterrent, I would agree that it’s a good idea. But the way it is administered today, I don’t believe that it is a deterrent. Furthermore, there are large costs that are created both in arriving at the decision to execute and in the rare tragic mistakes.
In short, I’m not saying the death penalty can never, under any circumstances be the right thing to do. But I think that our country is so far from that situation that having the apparatus in place is a waste of time and money.
VM,
1. At the very least person who is executed will never do it again. Even if he imprisoned he might murder. These things do happen.
2. It also gives him the opportunity for a kappara if he regrets his action.
3.I did see that there is a study that claims that the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment but I have my doubts. In the latter case the convict gets food, clothing, shelter, medical care, etc. at taxpayer expense perhaps for decades.In any case, I do not think that here we should make a bottom line decision. From what I know of the subject, game theory includes placing values on what cannot be valued in accounting, such as making a statement about the heinousness of murder and possibly preventing even one. Halachic considerations would, of course, override everything.
Here is my thinking on it. I don’t think that the purpose of punishing people is revenge; I don’t think the purpose is to make people happy that he was punished for hurting us; I think the purpose of punishing people is because we think it is justice and this the correct and proper thing to do.
I think that society decides that certain things are wrong and immoral. And if people do things which are wrong and immoral, it is right and moral that they should suffer punishment. I think this is natural law.
And to me, if a society doesn’t think that it has the moral imperative to punish moral crimes, then it is because they don’t really believe that the crimes are immoral. And when society refused to punish crimes, it demonstrates to the public that society does not consider the crime immoral.
Thus, I believe it is absolutely a moral imperative that ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????. And when society does not do so, it displays to everyone that it is not that bad to kill people. And that has an effect on society, and makes people more likely to kill.
VM, I must respectfully disagree with you. A person who is unquestionably guilty of premeditated or non-self-defensive murder, should be executed because that is justice for the person he murdered. Not revenge, but justice. A life for a life. Since another’s life clearly has no value to the killer, his life should be deemed of equal value. And that IS a deterrent, because at least THIS murderer will never be able to commit such a crime again. Small steps.
The reason it takes more money to execute than to incarcerate for life, is that the courts are so reluctant to enforce the death penalty once it is deemed appropriate, tht a prisoner is allowed numerous appeals. The prisoner lingers in jail for sometimes decades, all on our tax dime. If they would do what the Sanhedrin was supposed to do, i.e. once the Sanhedrin unanimously agreed on the death penalty after sleeping on the decision overnight, the person was immediately taken out to be executed, it would mitigate that waste of money issue.
I see no purpose to allowing ANY murderer (where there is no even one mitigating factor to consider) to live. I don’t care how young this Boston bomber is. He killed people who will never live to see their old age, and he killed a child who will never even reach HIS age. And what about the people who have been horribly and irrevocably maimed for life? We have to grow up and stop coddling people who would show such callous disregard for their own humanity. I wouldn’t lose sleep over it. In my more liberal-thinking years, I might have argued your point, but I have seen too much suffering, and too many monstrous people getting out of jail instead of being put six feet under.
BTW, his age is of no consequence to me. When he packed a bomb with nails and shrapnel or whatever was in it, he knew exactly what he was doing. He learned from the best of the worst examples of human beings, how to maximize the damage. If he were an 8 year old, I might feel differently, but then again, that 8 year old would probably be blown up with everyone else. BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY DO. There is no reason to allow such a person to continue to breathe the same air that we do.
I’m not losing sleep over it, Oomis. I’m just saying that as a rule, the threat of a death penalty apparatus involves more harm than benefit. A big part of that is because I don’t see any benefit in it. You use words like “justice” and PBA says “natural law” but all I see is circular reasoning. If this is justice, or natural law, explain why we it is a good thing to have justice or natural law. And do it in a way that demonstrates why they are not just new words for the impulse for revenge.
You use words like “justice” and PBA says “natural law” but all I see is circular reasoning. If this is justice, or natural law, explain why we it is a good thing to have justice or natural law. And do it in a way that demonstrates why they are not just new words for the impulse for revenge.
Sure, I’ll do that.
So humans are made with certain emotions and certain natural feelings about how the world ought to work.
Like for example, ownership: It is completely natural that people think that there are things which you own and that if somebody takes it from you they are doing something wrong. It doesn’t need to be that way, and indeed philosophers ask why it is that way. And the philosophers invent all sort of apologetic reasons why it is that way–but it is all just trying to describe something which they know exists. And when you read their arguments, you come away feeling very unconvinced–because they are refusing to acknowledge that it is that way just because we naturally feel that way.
People are made that it makes sense to us that a crime needs to be punished, even if the crime wasn’t done to us. And that the way we express that something is wrong is by saying that it has to be punished. And I think that is a good thing.
Iunno, Popa, still seems circular to me. You are saying that we are born with this instinct, it’s completely natural to be born with this instinct, and philosophers agree that that it’s the natural state of things. But that doesn’t explain why, after determining that there are other ideals that are brought into play, it is a good thing to be natural.
VM you are opposing the death penalty, but not other penalties such as life imprisonment. Why is that? You clearly agree that punishment is necessary and good. You are opposing punishment with punishment.
To expand: Imprisoning the bomber also will not bring back the victims who died, nor heal the wounded. That was your criteria, no? So why not just let him go?
Helpful hint: Don’t answer to stop him from doing it again. That is a trap.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.