I was happy to see that the Trump administration has bowed to pressure and will not be going into the televised execution biz when Nidal Malik Hasan, who killed 13 in the Fort Hood shooting, faces a firing squad in two months. Perhaps it was because some mega donors objected, or maybe someone realized that the viral images of Hasan’s “martyrdom” could inspire generations of extremists. The fact that it is blatantly immoral and disgusting had little to do with the decision, I’m sure, but it may have helped that the US military’s archbishop declared that Catholic soldiers should refuse to participate in the proposed execution. Or maybe it helped when people reminded Hegseth and Trump that four-year-olds could stumble across it.
The execution is scheduled for December 3, the day before Hanukkah, where the TV programmers could have squeezed it in between The Grinch Who Stole Christmas and Charlie Brown. Better yet, Hegseth could have preempted It’s a Wonderful Life with An Even More Spectacular Death.
While I completely agree that televising executions would be a new low for an administration that keeps out-lowering itself, a small part of me wishes that this execution would be televised, ideally at halftime of the Super Bowl. Would that, at long last, bring the American people to the realization of just how evil Trump, Hegseth and their enablers are? Or would it only make us thirst for more?
No one wants to make capital punishment a campaign issue at this point, just days before the midterms. But this Hegseth proposal, along with Tennessee’s botched execution of Christa Pike, forces us to ask tough questions. It’s estimated that 3 percent of executions in the US have been botched. We also know that DNA evidence has exonerated some prisoners after years on death row, or after their executions. Are human beings simply incapable of playing God like this?
Capital punishment is still a contentious, culture war-adjacent issue. It never made sense to me that it was so championed by those who also advocated for a so-called “culture of life.”
At James Talarico’s town hall broadcast on CNN this week, a Christian purist tried to ambush James Talarico on the subject of abortion, challenging his claim that the Bible does not mention it. She asked, what about the commandment “Thou shalt not kill?” Had she gone to Hebrew School, she would have learned that the original does not say “kill,” it actually translates to “Thou shalt not murder,” and - for Jews at least, as well as well as for Talarico - “murder” does not include most abortions; but it might include the death penalty, especially when it is misapplied.1
It would be a good idea to revisit a national conversation on the death penalty at some point, and maybe even return it to the Supreme Court when the time is right. Hegseth’s T-toned bloodlust tells us why.
No matter what our testosterone level, we have all become numb to the incessant killing. Whether in video games or bullying or a society that has gone insanely gun-crazy, as we saw again so tragically yesterday in Bend, Oregon; or maybe we’ve just gotten numb to seeing wars and so much murder on our screens, or in drone warfare, where you can push a button in New Mexico and an unmanned aircraft creates “collateral damage” half a world away… where fantasy and reality blend to the point where they are unrecognizable one from the other, where one second an evil killer is massacring people on the streets of Gotham City on the screen and the next, a real life Joker is spraying a Colorado movie theater with automatic gunfire.
Oh sure, we all pretend to be shocked. But are we really? Or have we simply forgotten how precious life is. Have we become numb to all the killing? Pete Hegseth’s idea was outrageous, but his face is a reflection of all America, even if a grotesque funhouse-mirror version.
Pete ‘R Us.
If a state-sponsored revenge killing were carried out at the Super Bowl, then perhaps the rest of us would wake up to our own bloodlust. No one doubts the brutality of the Fort Hood killings and other murders, but we need to refocus our attention less on the crimes and more on human fallibility and all the social inequities in how we apply justice, along with our need to develop a culture that truly sanctifies human life2.
In 2026, 23 states plus Washington D.C., have banned the death penalty, leaving 27 states - along with the US Military - still with capital punishment. Maybe this Hasan case, along with the botched execution of Christa Pike in Tennessee, will help to tip the scales in some of these states. My own state of Connecticut barred it in 2021.
The Jewish view is complicated. Rabbinic sources are in favor of the death penalty in theory, but almost never in practice. Why in theory? Because if human beings are created in God’s image, the value of a life is infinite. So if we can’t assign a monetary value to a life, at least in theory, the only way to compensate for taking something of infinite value is to take another thing that has infinite value. But in practice, we’re talking about playing God - and killing someone created in God’s image.
The Torah mandates the death penalty for 36 offenses, ranging from murder to kidnapping, adultery to incest, certain forms of rape, idolatrous worship and public incitement to apostasy, from disrespecting parents to desecrating the Sabbath. But the rabbinic sages effectively abolished the death penalty centuries later. The Talmud (Mishna Sanhedrin 4:5) stresses the importance of presenting completely accurate testimony in capital cases, for any mistakes or falsehoods could result in the shedding of innocent blood. If any perjury were to cause an execution, “the blood of the accused and his unborn offspring stain the perjurer forever.”
The rabbis’ felt that if just one innocent person is mistakenly executed, it is one person too many.
In Talmudic times, capital cases required a 23-judge court, while only three judges sat for non-capital cases. Two or more eyewitnesses were required to testify to the defendant’s guilt, and their hands would, “be the first against him to put him to death” (Deuteronomy 17:6-7). In a capital case, a one-vote majority could acquit a defendant, but could not convict. Furthermore, if there was a mere one-vote majority or if any judge was undecided, additional judges were added in pairs until the majority ruled against conviction, or until one judge in favor of conviction was persuaded to err on the side of innocence (Mishnah Sanhedrin 5:5).
In practice, the death penalty became almost impossible to implement, though over the centuries there has been a diversity of opinion on the matter. Maimonides claims that murderers should not be executed if there was a question about how the trial was conducted. But if the trial was conducted properly there is no restriction even if it means that one thousand murderers are executed in a single day. In the 20th century, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein countered that the purpose of assigning the death penalty to so many crimes in the Torah is to educate people about the severity of the offenses, rather than to end the lives of the offenders. That practice has continued to this day in modern Israel, where not even terrorists with blood on their hands are executed. Only those convicted of crimes against humanity (i.e. Adolf Eichmann) have been executed.
Last March, the current far-right Israeli government passed legislation to introduce the death penalty for cases of terrorism, including perpetrators of the October 7 attacks, but in a manner that all but disregards terrorism perpetrated by Jews. Professor Yoram Rabin, a criminal law scholar, calls it “a moral stain,” and I hope that Oct. 27’s elections will bring a new government to power that will remove it from the books, or make it all but impossible to implement. It would be the proper Jewish thing to do.
In the U.S., the statistics are daunting:
Nationally, since 1975, when the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty, 1,682 prisoners have died from capital punishment and at least 203 sentenced to death have been exonerated.
The average time spent on death row is 22-23 years. More than half of those exonerated have spent upward of 18 years on death row. DNA has played a role in exonerating a number of death row prisoners. But in many death penalty cases, DNA testing proves impossible because of a lack of testable evidence.
Scientific evidence strongly suggests that Texas executed an innocent man, Cameron Willingham, in 2004. Compelling evidence in other cases suggests more innocent people have been executed.
Causes of wrongful conviction include: eyewitness misidentification, police coercion, perjury, prosecutorial misconduct, and inadequate representation.
And then there are the social inequities. Nationally, 50% of murder victims are white. In cases resulting in an execution, however, the murder victim is white 76% of the time. Studies in Connecticut, North Carolina, Maryland, and California found that one’s odds of receiving the death penalty increase significantly when the victim is white.
Because of additional resources and preparation required in death penalty cases, a separate sentencing phase, post-conviction appeals, and the added costs of death row facilities, studies consistently find the death penalty to be more costly than life without parole.
It’s time to put an end to this murderous circus. Thank you, Pete Hegseth, for creating the circus that reminded us of that.
Talarico stated that were abortion considered murder, he would not be in favor of it. The better translation of the biblical Hebrew in the Ten Commandments is not “kill” but “murder,” and Jewish tradition says that neither the death penalty, when properly applied, nor abortion are “murder.”
And BTW, Talarico aced that town meeting on CNN, giving pitch-perfect replies to the toughest issues, ranging from trans-phobia to Israel /Jews to Christian supremacy to abortion. I can’t vote from him this time around, but I wish I could adopt him.
A reminder that in Jewish sources, a fetus is not considered a fully formed human life, which is why abortion is not considered murder. See below:
Here are some quick answers from the National Council of Jewish Women to frequently asked questions about abortion and Judaism:
Does Jewish law state that life begins at conception? No
Life does not begin at conception under Jewish law. Sources in the Talmud note that the fetus is “mere water” before 40 days of gestation. Following this period, the fetus is considered a physical part of the pregnant individual’s body, not yet having life of its own or independent rights. The fetus is not viewed as separate from the parent’s body until birth begins and the first breath of oxygen into the lungs allows the soul to enter the body
Does Jewish law assert that it is possible to murder a fetus? No
Jewish law does not consider a fetus to be alive. The Torah, Exodus 21:22-23, recounts a story of two men who are fighting and injure a pregnant woman, resulting in her subsequent miscarriage. The verse explains that if the only harm done is the miscarriage, then the perpetrator must pay a fine. However, if the pregnant person is gravely injured, the penalty shall be a life for a life as in other homicides. The common rabbinical interpretation of this verse is that the men did not commit murder and that the fetus is not a person. The primary concern is the well-being of the person who was injured.
According to Jewish law, is abortion health care? Yes
Jewish sources explicitly state that abortion is not only permitted but is required should the pregnancy endanger the life or health of the pregnant individual. Furthermore, “health” is commonly interpreted to encompass psychological health as well as physical health. NCJW advocates for abortion access as an essential component of comprehensive, affordable, confidential, and equitable family planning, reproductive, sexual health, and maternal health services.
What does Jewish law say about the rights of the person who is pregnant and the rights of the fetus?
Judaism values life and affirms that protecting existing life is paramount at all stages of pregnancy. A fetus is not considered a person under Jewish law and therefore does not have the same rights as one who is already alive. As such, the interests of the pregnant individual always come before that of the fetus.
Do abortion bans unduly favor one religious viewpoint over another? Yes
Different religions believe that human life begins at different stages of development. Science can explain developmental timelines, but philosophic and religious viewpoints largely determine what exactly defines “life” or “personhood” for each individual.
Jewish perspectives on abortion are nuanced and subject to constant discussion, as is the case with most of Jewish law. But those bullet points above generate broad consensus, which is why so many in Jewish community feel so disenfranchised and outraged today.
No comments:
Post a Comment