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.

Primark: Too good to be true?

I

I don't like ethical decisions.  They take me away from the path I admire the most... that of least resistance.

This is a problem given that I shop at Primark a lot.  Maybe it's because I'm tight with money or maybe because I'm a man of simple tastes.  Whilst it's probably a mix of the two, I hope it is more the latter.  What is the point of getting something fancy when you are going to look back in ten years time "Why was I wearing that?".  Why go for something that is five times the price just because it has a brand name on it?  I suppose an argument can be brought that other shops are better quality.  However, just like M & S vegetables, they may be better but not five times better, so don't be a snob.  Also, no matter how good the quality is, my trousers will always develop a hole in the crotch.  It's natural law.

So Primark it is.... or is it?As the saying goes: "If it looks too good to be true, it probably is".  If the clothes are that cheap, there must be something wrong. 

However, just imagine that you have just had a whole menagerie of Jewish festivals, you are coming up to the last one and you have no shirts that are simultaneously both clean and dry.  Never happened, of course, but just imagine.  Now whilst in general you don't need a new shirt, you just want to buy something cheaply and quickly to avoid looking like a vagabond and vagrant in synagogue.  Here, old adages fly out the window and plenty of reasons come to reassure me:

• They probably have automated machines which cut down on costs
• Plus... they must buy in bulk which'll make them inexpensive
• Reasonable quality clothes are bound to be that cheap if they are part of last year's line and other shops will no longer stock them.
• They explicitly state on their website that they ensure all their suppliers are ethical
• They are regulated and so wouldn't be able to get away with unethical practices

So go on then.  Let's get a nice plain shirt for a few pounds.  After all, G-d will probably love me more in a Primark shirt than if I turn up in a "Shit Happens" T-Shirt.

II

Today however, Primark- again- have been found to source from unethical suppliers. 

Once before they were found to have imported clothes made in Indian slums where children laboured in poor conditions.  At the time, Primark investigated promptly and decided to stop using these factories once they were aware of the problem.  This is exemplary company policy- and I don't mean that in a sarcastic way.  Companies make mistakes and it would be unfair to accuse them of knowing what is happening.  This is especially so if they have done everything they can- such as send out auditors- to find out if the suppliers are kosher.  The mark of morality is not that you don't make mistakes but that you say sorry and correct the mistake instantly.

Yet, today BBC news reports in this link  about their undercover report into conditions at a TNS Knitwear factory, who make clothes for Primark.  The workers get paid as little as £3.50 an hour (a long way below the minimum wage) and for as much as twelve hours a day, seven days a week.  All the money gets paid out in cash and there is no paperwork.  This is just as well because many of the employees wouldn't be allowed on the books.  Amongst the workers are illegal immigrants and people claiming unemployment benefit.

Once again,  I'm sure there was no intentional wrongdoing on Primark's part.  They are part of the 'Ethical Trading Initiative' and they have a precise code of conduct suppliers should follow.  However, it makes one very uneasy that, rather this unethical practice being detected by their procedures, the scandal only emerged after an undercover investigation.  It makes one wonder how many other dodgy suppliers they have on their books.

III

I'm not usually one to advocate boycotts of anyone or anything.  They are ineffectual, firstly, because unless everyone boycotts them, then your action is merely symbolic.  No-one is going to listen to your voice and you won't be able to affect change.  Secondly, even if everyone did boycott a particular firm and they went bust, what would that achieve?  You will be scapegoating someone without doing anything about the problem.  It's like the police arresting an insignificant drug dealer when a) they haven't cut off the supply and b) there are plenty of insignificant drug dealers to take their place. 

In this case, the public will have got on their high horse about Primark, thought how wonderfully moral they are, and move on to the next cheap retailer.  That is, until they have been caught in an act of indiscretion, at which point you have another scapegoat. 

No, given that such retailing isn't on its way out soon, the best thing for regulators to do is help tighten up Primark's procedures and to help them enforce the policies they already have .  The right thing for the kind of people that will continue to bargain-shop is:  demand that wrongs are righted, and then shop in a place committed to an ethical policy (which Primark seem to be).

However, having said this, I will boycott Primark products and stop buying there.  This will be coupled with not buying from similar stores.  I realised that this incident hasn't taught me anything about Primark per se, but about this kind of trading in general.  When you look for the cheapest mass-produced products from anywhere in the world, you are bound to run into trouble. 

To use another drug metaphor, no matter how careful you are, if you are going to buy your ecstasy from a man in the club, you'll eventually end up with a dog pill.  No matter how good Primark's procedures are, when dealing with these types of firms, you are going to run into unethical suppliers.  While there is still a demand for these clothes, then these scandals will always arise.  My boycott then, one which ideally others would follow, is to stop going for financial shortcuts.  Go to a shop and pay a bit more money, but where you know the worker's will get a fair deal.  Cut off the demand.  Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.

Given that I'm in a metaphor mood, let's use one last one to sum up my position...

With certain foods, checking the ingredients and spotting a green 'v' on the packet is no guarantee that the product is kosher.  It's not even a guarantee that it's vegetarian!  If you want the hescher, you have to pay for the hescher.

Brown's tax cuts: you what?

I don't know a thing about economics- and I'm severely under the impression that people talked themselves into an economic crisis- so I shall keep this short. As I understand, Brown wants to cut certain taxes without any means of paying for them and increase government borrowing. In other words, more spending and less income. This - supposedly- is meant to 'boost the economy'.

Wait a minute..... wasn't part of the reason we are in this crisis because people borrowed more than they could afford? Wasn't it the lack of common sense forgetting that you shouldn't spend more than you have? If this is right, I'm not sure the thinking behind the idea. Doesn't the same 'common sense' apply to countries as much as to people? Why get the country into debt?

And for what? £120 a year! This may be very middle-class of me but £120 isn't going to change the world for the individual but a lot of £120 is a massive amount for the country.

But this is presumably my ignorance

Three year old save his mothers life

This is a beautiful story and has really made my night! (How sad am I?)

A woman had an epileptic fit and her three year old son phoned 999 to tell them his mum was ill and his dad was out. The battery on the phone ran out before he could tell them much, so he found another phone and rang back.

Inspector Ormiston said:

Without doubt, young Jack has saved his mum's life. For such a young boy to have the presence of mind to not only phone 999, but to phone us on another mobile phone after the battery had run down, is phenomenal.

Here Here!

(And for a change in the mood, I'm off to choral selichot)

Urinating on the motorway, Arabs, environment, Israel and the Palestinians, prostitutes and water buffallo.

Just a few completely random points about urinating on the motorway, Arabs, environment, Israel and the Palestinians, prostitutes and water buffallo.

---------

IF YOU ARE AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT, DON’T PISS ON THE HARD SHOULDER OF A MOTORWAY. Apparently it’s illegal, but it’s probably not the worst crime in the world. Obviously you are putting yourself at risk, but then driving when you desperately need to go, can’t be much better. You know… when you get to that point where you have to keep moving otherwise it’s unbearable?!?!?

But if you are illegally here and without a driving license, you don’t want to be found out because you needed the toilet. That’s what happened in ‘Traffic Cops’ last night which I was watching for want of anything better to do (you know, one of those filler programmed for Wednesday nights. Why do they put rubbish programmes on, on Wednesdays?). You know, you’d think they would want to keep their heads down or if you are going to get deported, you might as well go out in style.

But when nature calls…

------

An interesting note by Rav Hirsch (from the 19^th century) on the positive qualities of Arabs. Funnily enough, it was in article on Jewish women.

“The monotheism of Abraham, the Hamitic sensuality and thirst for freedom that stamped the personality of Hagar, and the virtual fanatic belief in the providence of Almighty G-d, drawn, as it were, by Hagar from the ‘well of the Living One Who sees me’- this mixture of qualities has shaped the traits for which the Arabs are known to this day and with which they have made their own contribution, in the form of poetry and scholarship, to the spiritual symposium of humanity”

‘Nuff said

------

I got the overwhelming desire today to buy a car. Why? So I can conscientiously not use it! I hate it when people (and I don’t know why, but specifically Jews do it) drive to university when it is less than 15 minutes walk away. It’s disgraceful. Apart from being horrendously lazy, it’s horrific for the environment.

Now when environmental protestors say that people shouldn’t fly or say that horrendous taxes should be put on it, that’s just stupid. Some people need to fly, others want to fly but only do so occasionally, and those who are filthy rich… well… they are going to fly anyway. Stopping flying is not only something that you cannot achieve, it might not be desirable to achieve.

What really matters for the environment is these small things that you can do stuff about. Yes I know it would take a hell of a lot of not going by car to make up for one plane journey. However, firstly there are a lot of people that can ‘not go by car’. It is practical and unless your are bone-idle, there is no reason not to walk. Thirdly, going by car for a short journey bespeaks a whole attitude and if you won’t drive if necessary, you wont do other things either.

Now I’m probably guilty too. I do accept lifts to morning service. It’s too early and I don’t have the wherewithal to move, let alone put up a principled stand. But regardless of whether I get in the car, the car will be driven anyway. I would never ask for there to be a lift if there wasn’t one already going. And that’s why I want a car, so that if no-one else is going, I can in principle refuse to take people!

An expensive gesture, buying a car for that reason!

-----

Good news of sorts. Following a decision from Ehud Barak, travel restrictions are being eased for Palestinians in the West Bank, and the PA police (or at least a loyal subsection of them) are getting new equipment. This is following on from continued negotiations between PA and Israel. Also, talks between Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas continue. This can only be good news if it helps the lives of Palestinian civilians, and increased Paelstinian compliance in aiding Israel’s security. It’s a shame that it is primarily motivated by one-upmanship against Hamas. Rather than (by either side involved) a real concern for peace or the lives of civilians, it is trying to score political points against Hamas in Gaza. Bloody politics. Please G-d, they find a way to help the humanitarian situation in Gaza without having to give political credence to Hamas.

Although one of my points is proved. Criticism from a friend is far more effective than criticism from someone that hates your guts! The good news in part arose from criticism of Ehud Barak by Condoleeza Rice. The Americans overall (and rightly so) agree with Israel about things. As such, Israel has an incentive to listen to them. Where criticism is needed, it should be given (and probably doesn’t happen enough). Criticism from Palestinian groups, on the other hand, is ineffectual and shows that they don’t really have the interests of Palestinians at heart or if they do, they are very misguided. When you justify suicide bombings, deny Israel’s right to exist (however you dress it up) and will criticise Israel come what may, the criticisms will be as effective as a one-legged chair. When you preach immoral things, your valid criticisms will not be listened to.

----

The following incident reminded me of situations with ‘money boxes’ designed to stop people swearing (i.e. put 50p in if you say **** etc) where the child swears, gets told off and says “I’m not ******* swearing, ok?”. This is what Rabbi Ezekial Landau said in court:

"Everyone should know that the wife of the Chief Rabbi is a prostitute and there is a fine, 100 adumim for each utterace that she is a prostitute, and you should also all know that if I had more money I would call her a prostitute again, however I currently do not have the money I will have to satisfy myself with the fact that I have already called her a prostitute."

The following reminded me of when certain Catholics will defend to the hilt not wearing condoms because that is what the Pope decrees, but are quite happy to have sex before marriage (which I’m sure he’s not too fond of):

A Latin document records a troubling incident from 1404 where, "a German speaking Jew visited a non-Jewish prostitute on Shabbat and he refused to pay her, he explained that he could not pay her as it would violate the Shabbat."

It’s fun reading about prostitution!

----

Last but not least, I have decided I am a filthy animal. I was watching the ‘One Show’ where they were looking at a reservation park with water buffalo in. They happened to mention that they had cloven hoofs. All I could think about “I wonder if they are kosher!” I couldn’t get it out of my head. I’m a bad man!