I was just wondering if Judaism takes a position on the death penalty? Or is there diversity of views between the differing branches? or is it a matter where individuals take their own position?
Not really. The Catholic church, of couse, is vehemently anti-death penalty. Organized Judaism has a less universal position.
For one thing, Judaism still sticks by the laws of the Old Testament, and those include the death penalty for certain offenses. Of course, lacking a religious governing body and court system, we don’t execute people, but if the whole system were in place, it would include provisions for execution.
On the other hand, the Sanhedrin (Jewish high court) was never very big on carrying out executions. The Rabbis would try to make use of all the loopholes afforded them to help the person avoid the death penalty. Also, the circumtances required to give someone a death sentence to begin with were extremely strict. For a murderer to be given the death penalty, he must have been seen in the act of committing the murder by two adult male witnesses. He must also have been warned before committing the crime. I’m not sure what such a warning would entail (“See here, don’t murder people”), but it must have taken place before the crime.
Judaism also doesn’t allow for the execution of minors, though it should be noted that in Judaism, majority is acheived at Bar Mitzvah or Bat Mitzvah (13 for boys, 12 for girls).
Because of all the stipulations and loophole usage, the court would be considered a “bloody court” if it executed even one person every 70 years.
In essence, though Judaism as a religion allows for the death penalty, it does so under ONLY VERY LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES. The theological heirs of this court system are less unified under one authority than, say, the Catholic church, which has one centralized body of power and therefore can say “The church is opposed to this.” Judaism today is so fractured that we rarely have one unified voice on anything. But we all come from the same source tradition, and its attitude was not in favor of general application of the death penalty.
FWIW, I am an Orthodox Jew and anti-death penalty, but I know many Orthodox Jews who are not. So no, there is no cohesive position, but there is pretty definitive source material.
It would have to be a verbal warning to the perpetrator to the effect that the crime that he is committing is a capital crime. In addition, the perpetrator must answer back words to the effect of “I know, but I’m going to commit the crime anyway.”
Likewise, there were numerous protections built into the way the judges deliberated the case to give the defendant every chance at avoiding the death penalty. Among the steps taken were:
-
When it came time for the judges to deliberate (in captial cases, the “jury” is a panel of 23 judges), the deliberations had to begin with someone advocating acquittal.
-
A judge who advocates for acquittal cannot later advocate for conviciton if he changes his mind (although when it comes time to vote, he can vote his conviction at the time).
-
If it is apparent that a conviction is imminent, the judges adjourn for the day, giving themselves the chance to “sleep on it” and find grounds for acquittal.
-
An conviction required a majority +1. In order words, 13 of the 23 had to find for conviction. However, if all 23 vote guilty, the result is an acquittal.
-
After the conviction, anyone, even the defendant, is allowed to reopen the case multiple times (provided that there is substance to his arguments). In addition, before execution, a public announcement was made giving details of the crime and asking anyone who had information to acquit to come forward.
As for my own personal convicitons, I would never say that I am pro-death penalty. I would be happy to never see it applied again. Nonetheless, I take the position that there are certain crimes that are so heinous, that the death penalty is the appropriate punishment for them.
Zev Steinhardt