The Death Penalty

Today, amazingly, a man was released from prison after 27 years incarceration for a crime he never committed. Sean Hodgson was convicted of rape and murder but DNA testing of the sperm at the scene has revealed that it was not his. Possibly, and this is a matter for an inquiry, the court should not have accepted the confession of a 'pathological liar'. However, they cannot be faulted for overlooking forensic evidence, as DNA testing didn't exist then (or at least not in the way it is now). As such, it may be that locking him up was the just thing to do, on the basis of what was known at the time.

One thing that it does confirm in my mind is the unacceptability of the death penalty and my relief and being under English rule where it no longer exists. Had the death penalty been in effect, an innocent man would have been put to death and a subsequent 'clearing of his name' wouldn't have been unable to undo this. Of course, far back in English history, the death penalty could be given for something as small as stealing bread. With the advent of the Human Rights Act, however, not even High Treason is punishable in this way.

This is not to say that 'in theory' death is not the appropriate response to particular crimes (not stealing bread though!). If I couldn't reconcile myself, in some way, to the idea of the death penalty, it would most certainly put me at odds with Judaism. Biblical law prescribes death for a large array of different crimes. The Hebrew Bible is a seemingly gruesome book suggesting stoning, strangling, drowning etc. We pray on Yom Kippur, in an inappropriately happy tune, for our sins that deserve these punishments to be commuted.

The logic of the death penalty- at least in the case of murder- is clear. The value of a person's life is the potential to do good deeds and, where one has done wrong, do teshuva (repentance). Repentance in the bible is "eye for an eye": like-for-like reparation is needed to undo the effects of the sin. In certain cases, the perpetrator further needs to experience the wrongdoing themselves. As such, certain forms of stealing require paying double- undo the sin by paying back the money and to then feel what it is like to be without that amount.

Here the law aims not at being punitive but at educating the perpetrator and arousing a sense of sympathy with the victim. They will then be able to go on and live a meaningful life. Bad actions can only be counteracted by good actions, and not by the grace of G-d. Murder, however, is the ultimate crime where the effects of the sin cannot be undone and where the wrong can not be 'righted'. Here, the murderers life is forfeit as there is no potential to do good deeds that can outweigh the evil done. Not even G-d can forgive such a sin.

Despite this "theory", it was never thought to be practically workable proposal for most of those convicted of murder. The Talmud records the following opinions:

"a Sanhedrin [highest law court] that effects an execution once in seven years is branded a destructive tribunal." Rabbi Eliezer Ben Azariah said "once in seventy years." Rabbis Tarfon and Akiba said, "If we were members of a Sanhedrin, nobody would ever be put to death."

The conditions put on the death penalty were so hard that it was virtually impossible to put someone to death this way.

If 2000 years ago they were circumspect about the standard of evidence in murder cases, how much more so should we be? The technological advances we have seen can lead one generations "safe cases" to be overturned in the next. This should not lead to impotence in carrying out justice. As I started by saying, it may have been absolutely the right thing to do, to lock this person up. However, it should lead those who advocate the death penalty to think twice about doing something that cannot be undone.