Religion and capital punishment 4043864 223705619 2008-07-05T10:41:08Z SpellingBot 6773085 postion → position {{Unreferenced|date=February 2008}} {{Original research|date=February 2008}} {{Capital punishment}} Most major world '''religions''' take an ambiguous position on the morality of '''[[capital punishment]]'''. [[Religion]]s are often based on a body of teachings and scripture that can be interpreted as either favouring or repudiating the [[death penalty]]. Some, such as [[Judaism]] and the [[Roman Catholic Church]], teach that while the death penalty is hypothetically permissible in certain circumstances, it should be abolished in the modern world. In the past, some religions sentenced men to death either for failing to convert to their religion or for converting to another. According to some Islamic religious law, a Muslim can be sentenced to death for conversion to Christianity. But others point out that the Quran says, "Let there be no compulsion in religion." (2:256)<ref>[http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L2179587.htm]{{Dead link|date=March 2008}}</ref> The relationship between religion and the death penalty is further complicated by the fact that it is common for the followers of a religion to disagree with its official teachings on the subject. In the US, Congress is presently debating whether religious belief under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution could prevent somebody from being executed. ==Buddhism== There is disagreement among Buddhists as to whether or not Buddhism forbids the death penalty. The first of the [[Five Precepts]] (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the [[Dhammapada]] states: :Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada, states, "Him I call a [[brahmin]] who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill." These sentences are interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the modern humanistic West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty. However, as is often the case with the interpretation of scripture, there is dispute on this matter. [[Thailand]], where [[Buddhism]] is the official religion, practices the death penalty, as do all other countries where the majority of the population is Buddhist, i.e. [[Sri Lanka]], [[Mongolia]], and [[Myanmar]], although the last has had a moratorium on executions since 1997. Moreover, throughout almost all history, countries where Buddhism has been the official religion (which includes most of the [[Far East]] and [[Indochina]]) have practiced the death penalty. One exception is the abolition of the death penalty by the [[Emperor Saga]] of [[Japan]] in 818. This lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions continued to be conducted as a form of retaliation. The Buddhist concept of lethal self-defense is subtly non-linear and based on the criterion of prevention of greater suffering. The [[Bodhicaryavatara]] of [[Shantideva]] (8th century AD), authorizes violence if it is necessary to prevent suffering: "One should always strive for the benefit of others. Even that which has been prohibited has been permitted for the compassionate one who foresees benefit"; "May I be a protector for those who do not have protectors"; and "If the suffering of many disappears because of the suffering of one, then a compassionate person should induce that suffering for the sake of others."<ref>Wallace & Wallace, "Introduction to Santideva", ''A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life''</ref> ''Upaya-kaushalya sutra'' (Skillful Means) tells the story of a Bodhisattva who saved hundreds of people by killing a murderous thief.<ref>Jeffrey L. Richey, Zen, Premodern, in ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION AND WAR, at 465</ref> Other Mahayana scriptures explain that such a defensive killing prevents the murderer from bringing more bad karma on himself, and creates good karma for the defender, providing that the defender acts in the spirit of compassion.<ref>Richard D. McBride, II, Buddhism: China, in ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION AND WAR, at 39</ref> This is known in Japanese Buddhist tradition as ''issatsu tasho'', "killing one (aggressor) in order that many (innocents) may live" and is a manifestation of "skillful means". Nor should it be forgotten that, in considering the non-linear attitude of Buddhism towards "chivalrous" violence, the blue-eyed great Buddha [[Bodhidharma]], not only brought Zen Buddhism from India to China around 520 A.D., but was also, according to universal tradition, the founder of the [[martial arts]] and [[kung fu]].<ref>MICHAEL MALISZEWSKI, SPIRITUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE MARTIAL ARTS 43, 1998</ref> In mystical Zen Buddhism (as reflected in Japanese [[Bushido]]), there is a traditional expression: "the sword that (justly) kills is the identical with the sword that gives life". Therefore, few (if any) Buddhist groups issue blanket decrees against Buddhists being soldiers, police officers, or farmers (which in Buddhism is classified as a profession involved in destruction of life), and some argue that the death penalty is permissible if it is used for preventative purposes. In general, Buddhist groups in secular countries such as Japan, Korea, and Taiwan tend to take an anti-death penalty stance, while in Thailand, Sri Lanka, and Bhutan, where Buddhism has strong political influence, the opposite is true. Almost all Buddhist groups, however, oppose the use of the death penalty as a means of [[Retributive justice|retribution]]. ==Christianity== There is much disagreement among Christians on the issue of capital punishment. Those in favour of capital punishment often point to passages in the Old Testament of the [[Bible]] that advocate the death penalty such as [[Genesis]] 9 which states, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." Those against tend to select passages from the New Testament that advocate love, forgiveness, and mercy. In the [[Antithesis of the Law]], Jesus says: "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also…" You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven." In the [[Pericope Adulterae]] of the [[Gospel of John]], a story is told of a woman who was caught in the act of adultery. The Old Testament law demanded that she be put to death by stoning; Jesus saves her life by requiring that the first stone be cast by someone who has never sinned, and rather than take that role himself, simply tells the woman to leave her life of sin. Another verse quoted often by supporters of capital punishment is Romans 13:4: "But if you do evil, be afraid; for [the governing authority] does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." Supporters point to the fact that a [[sword]] is an instrument used for killing rather than scourging. Interpreting the Bible as a story of man's redemption through repentance to Christ, some Christians argue that by executing a murderer one is cutting short his life and taking away his opportunity to repent, and that it denies the role of his cross putting an end to all subsequent blood atonement for sins. Some conservative Christian groups who believe in a literal [[hell]] argue that all who die without repentance automatically go there, and point out that many serial killers, including [[Jeffrey Dahmer]] and [[Ted Bundy]], became [[born-again Christian]]s in prison. Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ and so gives precedence to the New Testament of the Bible. Therefore pro-death penalty arguments that seem to give precedence to the Old Testament have been criticized by groups such as the [[Religious Society of Friends|Quakers]] and some non-Christian critics who wish to show inconsistency in the views of pro-capital punishment Christians. The argument generally advanced by pro-capital punishment Christians in response to this is that there is no such contradiction, because Jesus did not revoke the Old Testament law. According to this argument, the "eye for eye" passage (as here shown above) is part of a passage (Matthew 5:17-48) in which Jesus explicitly stated that he had not come to abolish the Old Testament law itself, but then spoke against certain interpretations of the law, including here one in which the law which advocated judicial retribution was being taken to endorse acts of personal revenge. <ref>For example, a search for web pages containing "Matthew 5" together with "Capital punishment" will give an indication of the range of views commonly expressed on this issue.</ref> Jesus is also thought by some to have acknowledged capital punishment when he was on the cross with the two murderers. The one criminal confessed that they murdered and are righteously receiving their punishment, but the other didn’t express regret, and didn’t repent. Jesus only turned to the criminal who repented and said: “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43) Others not that during his own trial he acknowledged that the government had power over him, and did not question the jurisdiction of the court or its authority to impose capital punishment - and he never spoke against capital punishment administered by governments. Some argue too that while on the cross suffering capital punishment he could have saved himself but chose not to do so. These lead some to suggest that Jesus showed support for capital punishment in his words and deeds. And some have claimed that the book of Revelation suggests Jesus will execute non-believers in the Second Coming (Revelation 19: 11-16 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.) On the other hand, he also said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" which others argue suggests an anti capital punishment position. ===Catholicism=== {{see|Capital punishment in the Vatican City}} Pre-modern Roman Catholicism unabashedly favored the execution of grave moral transgressors. In his ''Stromata'', [[Clement of Alexandria]] argued that "if someone falls into incurable evil--when taken possession of by wrong or covetousness--it will be good if he is put to death." Church theologians [[Lactantius]] and [[Eusebius]] formulated the view of [[Constantine the Great]], who engaged in many acts of punitive violence, as "God's divinely appointed agent to restore justice and exact divine vengeance on the wicked." [[St. Jerome]] pointed out execution of "murderers, blasphemers and poisoners" is not "shedding of blood but the administration of laws". [[Augustine of Hippo|St. Augustine]] explained that Christ's precepts only apply to the internal disposition and the role of the judicial punisher in society is necessary and natural. St. Augustine made a great deal out of the Old Testament idea of war as punishment commanded by God as a continuing warrant to use lethal warlike force to punish and correct [[sin]] (Russell, ''Just War in the Middle Ages'', 1975, 22-23). The Catholic Church officially condemned the denial of the death penalty in the profession of faith that [[Pope Innocent III]] required of the [[Waldensians]] reconciled to the church in 1210. [[St. Thomas Aquinas]] developed a grim metaphor of the criminal--whether heretic, witch, traitor or murderer--as a "diseased member" necessarily amputated if the otherwise healthy body politic is to survive. In the traditional Catechism of Trent (1566 AD), it is highlighted that "lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent." Later in history, the French Catholic philosopher [[Joseph de Maistre]] ferociously opposed every form of bureaucratic liberalism and believed the modern world was shattered by satanic forces of atheistic rationalism, and could be rebuilt only by cutting off all the heads of the anti-Christian Revolution in all its multiple disguises. De Maistre made the function of the [[executioner]] (as punisher of sin) the center of his Catholic aristocratic radicalism: "All greatness, all power, all subordination rest on the executioner. He is the terror and bond of human association. Remove this mysterious agent from the world, and in an instant order yields to chaos: thrones fall, society disappears. God, who has created sovereignty, has also made punishment." [[Pope Pius XII]] (1939-1958) defended the death penalty as a form of moral expiation: "Even when executing a condemned individual, the State does not have a right over the person’s life. The public authority is empowered to deprive a condemned man of his life to expiate his fault since by his own crime he divested himself from his right to life" (I limite morali dei metodi medici di indagine e di cura , —Ai participanti del Congresso Internazionale in Istopatologia del sistema nervoso—, Discorsi e Radiomessaggi di Sua Santità Pio XII, vol. XV, Tipografia Poliglota Vaticana, p. 328). The modernized [[Vatican II]] [[Roman Catholic Church]], however, has demonstrated an extremely cautious attitude towards capital punishment as it is practiced in most nations in the modern world, not definitely excluding but placing heavy restrictions on its existence. The [[Catechism of the Catholic Church]] recognizes that "the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty" ([http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getsection.cfm?partnum=3&SecNum=2&ChapNum=2&articlenum=5&ParSecNum=0&subSecNum=1&headernum=2&ParNum=2267&ParType=a]), but the death penalty is permissible only in certain rare circumstances. Church doctrine is that a death penalty can be necessary at times when a society does not have the means to keep its citizens safe from criminals, but that Catholics are called to oppose the death penalty if the condemned can be successfully kept behind bars to protect society. If, however, the condemned poses a threat to the well-being of society and is not likely to be able to be kept behind bars then under the principle of [[double effect]] in order to protect life, the implementation of a death penalty is permissible.{{ref|vat}} In a letter to the American Bishops on denying Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians, the then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now [[Pope Benedict XVI]], clarified that the death punishment is legitimate and cannot be placed in the same moral category as abortion or euthanasia. He stated: "[I]f a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. ... [I]t may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia" ([http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea2.asp]). [[Avery Cardinal Dulles]] argues that the death penalty is not inconsistent with human dignity and that its repudiation in the name of specious "progressivism" can only lead to doctrinal [[anomie]]: "Arguments from the progress of ethical consciousness have been used to promote a number of alleged human rights that the Catholic Church consistently rejects in the name of Scripture and tradition. The magisterium appeals to these authorities as grounds for repudiating divorce, abortion, homosexual relations, and the ordination of women to the priesthood. If the Church feels herself bound by Scripture and tradition in these other areas, it seems inconsistent for Catholics to proclaim a ‘moral revolution’ on the issue of capital punishment" ("Catholicism and Capital Punishment," ''First Things'', April 2001, pp. 30-35). ===In the United States=== Although the Catholic Church and liberal Protestant churches in the United states have maintained official positions against the death penalty since the 1950s and early 1960s, this is not necessarily reflected in the views of their members. Conservative Christians argue that as the Bible does not have explicit prohibition against death penalty; therefore, it is considered to be permissible. Members of the Catholic Church are more likely to oppose the death penalty while most conservative Protestant groups support it. Exceptions to this rule include the [[Amish]] and [[Mennonites]], who oppose capital punishment. The [[Sojourners]] community has also provided a liberal [[evangelical Christian]] voice against capital punishment, often in conjunction with [[Pax Christi]], [[Catholic Worker]]-aligned individuals and other [[Catholic peace activists]]. ===Mormonism=== {{main|Mormonism and violence|blood atonement}} [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] (LDS Church) presently takes no position on capital punishment, but until the mid-20th century there was a controversial doctrine called [[blood atonement]], holding that the blood of [[Jesus]]' [[Atonement]] does not remit certain serious sins, and the only way that a Mormon sinner could pay for them would be to have their blood spilled on the ground as an [[atonement in Judaism|atonement]]. There is no direct evidence that this doctrine was ever officially practiced by clergy in their official capacity, although the doctrine was blamed for a number of killings in the [[Utah Territory]], and was made famous because of the [[Mountain Meadows massacre]]. The doctrine is cited as a reason why, until recently, [[Utah]] gave convicted [[first-degree murder]]ers a choice to be [[execution by firing squad|executed by firing squad]] rather than other methods such as [[hanging]]. ==Hinduism== A basis can be found in [[Hinduism|Hindu]] teachings both for permitting and forbidding the death penalty. Hinduism preaches ''ahimsa'' (non-violence), but also teaches that the soul cannot be killed and death is limited only to the physical body. The soul is reborn into another body upon death (until [[Moksha]]), akin to a human changing clothes. The religious, civil and criminal law of Hindus is encoded in the [[Dharmaśāstra]]s and the [[Arthasastra]]. The Dharmasastras describe many crimes and their punishments and calls for the death penalty in several instances, including murder, the mixture of castes, and righteous warfare. However the [[Mahabharata]] contains passages arguing against the use of the death penalty in all cases. An example is a dialogue between King Dyumatsena and his son Prince Satyavan (section 257 of the Santiparva) where a number of men are brought out for execution at the King's command. :''Prince Satyavan says:'' Sometimes virtue assumes the form of sin and sin assumes the form of virtue. It is not possible that the destruction of individuals can ever be virtuous. :''King Dyumatsena replies:'' If the sparing of those who should be killed be virtuous, if robbers be spared, Satyavan, all distinction between virtue and vice will disappear. :''Satyavan responds:'' Without destroying the body of the offender, the king should punish him as ordained by the scriptures. The king should not act otherwise, neglecting to reflect upon the character of the offence and upon the science of morality. By killing the wrongdoer, the King kills a large number of his innocent men. Behold by killing a single robber, his wife, mother, father and children, all are killed. When injured by wicked persons, the king should therefore think seriously on the question of punishment. Sometimes a wicked person is seen to imbibe good conduct from a pious man. It is seen that good children spring from wicked persons. The wicked should not therefore be exterminated. The extermination of the wicked is not in consonance with the eternal law. On the other hand, such a liberal modernist interpretation of the texts is not so absolute: in the same text, in the [[Bhagavad Gita]], righteous destruction of the wicked is commended as meritorious and fulfillment of caste duty: “Taking as equal pleasure and pain, gain and loss, victory and defeat, gird thyself for the battle; thus thou shalt not incur sin.” (II. Verse 38) "When justice is crushed, when evil is triumphant, then I come back. For the protection of the good, for the destruction of evil-doers, and for the establishment of dharma, I am born age after age." (VI, Verses 7-8) In spite of liberal modernist mawkishness, death punishment for conscienceless murderers and sexual deviants has always been part of the Hindu sanatana dharma. The Indian fundamentalist teacher A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada sums up his views on "righteous lethality" and "detached violence": "...violence also has its utility, and how to apply violence rests with the person in knowledge. Although the justice of the peace awards capital punishment to a person condemned for murder, the justice of the peace cannot be blamed, because he orders violence to another person according to the codes of justice. In [[Manu Smriti]], the lawbook for mankind, it is supported that a murderer should be condemned to death so that in his next life he will not have to suffer for the great sin he has committed. Therefore, the king’s punishment of hanging a murderer is actually beneficial. Similarly, when Krsna orders fighting, it must be concluded that violence is for supreme justice, and thus Arjuna should follow the instruction, knowing well that such violence, committed in the act of fighting for Krsna, is not violence at all because, at any rate, the man, or rather the soul, cannot be killed; so for the administration of justice, so-called violence is permitted." [http://www.harekrishna.com/col/books/BG/gita/chapter2.html] ==Islam== [[Islamic scholars]] state that whilst the [[Qur'an]] professes the basic principle that everyone has the right to life, this principle allows for an exception when a court of law demands it. Their precept is "Do not kill a Soul which [[Allah]] has made sacred except through the due process of law". This exception authorises the administration of capital punishment when Islamic law dictates. This is the line taken by most countries in which [[Islam]] is the [[state religion]] or the principal religion, for example, throughout the [[Arab world]] and in [[Indonesia]] and [[Malaysia]]. One notable characteristic of Sharia is that the family of a murder victim can pardon the murderer. In Islam, the victim and/or the victim's family are the judges for all crimes; they decide what the punishment shall be under the supervision of a jurist who knows the Qur'an. One verse which clearly illustrates the possibility of capital punishment is in the Qur’an verse 5:32. “On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.” Other verses reinforce the idea that, for example, in a case of murder, the victim's family decides the punishment- with the death penalty as a possibility. Verse 5:32 notes that compassion is the best choice. "Mischief in the land" (e.g. treason) is also punishable by death. Verse 2:178 further discusses capital punishment, in the case of murder; “O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female, but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother, then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement.” Here, it is further clarified that capital punishment is only just with the rule of equality (slave for slave, etc., a man killing a woman would not be justly punishable by death), and the idea of the victim's family receiving a payment to spare the murderer's life is presented. This payment, some Muslim thinkers hold, is more constructive in a case of a father being murdered- the murdered father's family has a better chance of survival without him if there is monetary compensation, whereas capital punishment would leave them without a breadwinner. List of cases in which the transgressor is required to be killed by well established [[Sharia]] views '''* Murder''' '''* Fasaad fi al-ardh (spreading mischief in the land)''' This can cover treason, terrorism, piracy and rape, and in some cases adultery. ==Judaism==<!-- This section is linked from [[Judaism and Christianity]] --> {{main|Corporal punishment (Judaism)}} The official teachings of [[Judaism]] approve the death penalty in principle but the standard of proof required for application of death penalty is extremely stringent, and in practice, it has been abolished by various Talmudic decisions, making the situations in which a death sentence could be passed effectively impossible and hypothetical. "Forty years before the destruction" of the [[Temple in Jerusalem]] in 70 <small>AD</small>, i.e. in 30 <small>AD</small>, the [[Sanhedrin]] effectively abolished capital punishment, making it a hypothetical upper limit on the severity of punishment, fitting in finality for God alone to use, not fallible people.<ref>[[Jerusalem Talmud]] (Sanhedrin 41 a)</ref> While allowing for the death penalty in some hypothetical circumstances, scholars of [[Judaism]] are broadly opposed to the death penalty as practiced in the modern world. The Jewish understanding of Biblical law is not based on a literal reading of the Bible, but rather through the lens of Judaism's [[oral law]]. These oral laws were first recorded around 200 CE in the [[Mishnah]] and later around 600 CE in the Babylonian [[Talmud]]. The laws make it clear that the death penalty was used only rarely. The Mishnah states: :A [[Sanhedrin]] that puts a man to death once in seven years is called destructive. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says: a Sanhedrin that puts a man to death even once in seventy years. Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Tarfon say: Had we been in the Sanhedrin none would ever have been put to death. Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel says: they would have multiplied shedders of blood in Israel. (Mishnah, Makkot 1:10). Rabbinic tradition describes a detailed system of checks and balances to prevent the execution of an innocent person. These rules are so restrictive as to effectively legislate the penalty out of existence. The law requires that: *There must have been two witnesses to the crime, and these must conform to a prescribed list of criteria. For example, females and close relatives of the criminal are precluded from being witnesses according to Biblical law, while full-time gamblers are precluded as a matter of Rabbinical law. *The witnesses must have verbally warned the person seconds before the act that they were liable for the death penalty *The person must then have acknowledged that he or she was warned, and yet then have gone ahead and committed the sin regardless. *No individual was allowed to testify against him or herself. In law schools everywhere, students read the famous quotation from the 12th Century legal scholar, [[Maimonides]], :"It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death." Maimonides argued that executing a defendant on anything less than absolute certainty would lead to a slippery slope of decreasing burdens of proof, until we would be convicting merely "according to the judge's caprice." (Caprice of all kinds are more visible now with computers, statistics, DNA evidence, and new discovery laws directed at prosecutors' files.) Maimonides was concerned about the need for the law to guard itself in public perceptions, to preserve its majesty and retain the people's respect.<ref>Moses Maimonides, ''The Commandments, Neg. Comm. 290'', at 269-271 (Charles B. Chavel trans., 1967).</ref> Today, the [[Israel|State of Israel]] only uses the death penalty for extraordinary crimes. The only execution ever to take place in Israel was in 1962, against convicted [[Nazism|Nazi]] [[War crime|war criminal]] [[Adolf Eichmann]]. However, Israeli employment of the death penalty has little to do with Jewish law. In [[Orthodox Judaism]], it is held that in theory the death penalty is a correct and just punishment for some crimes. However in practice the application of such a punishment can only be carried out by humans whose system of justice is nearly perfect, a situation which has not existed for some time. Orthodox [[Rabbi]] Yosef Edelstein writes :"So, at least theoretically, the Torah can be said to be pro-capital punishment. It is not morally wrong, in absolute terms, to put a murderer to death ...However, things look rather different when we turn our attention to the practical realization of this seemingly harsh legislation. You may be aware that it was exceedingly difficult, in practice, to carry out the death penalty in Jewish society ...I think it's clear that with regard to Jewish jurisprudence, the capital punishment outlined by the Written and Oral Torah, and as carried out by the greatest Sages from among our people (who were paragons of humility and humanity and not just scholarship, needless to say), did not remotely resemble the death penalty in modern America (or Texas). In theory, capital punishment is kosher; it's morally right, in the Torah's eyes. But we have seen that there was great concern&mdash;expressed both in the legislation of the Torah, and in the sentiments of some of our great Sages&mdash;regarding its practical implementation. It was carried out in ancient Israel, but only with great difficulty. Once in seven years; not 135 in five and a half." ([[Yosef Edelstein|Rabbi Yosef Edelstein]], Director of the Savannah Kollel) Orthodox Rabbi [[Aryeh Kaplan]] writes: :"In practice, however, these punishments were almost never invoked, and existed mainly as a deterrent and to indicate the seriousness of the sins for which they were prescribed. The rules of evidence and other safeguards that the Torah provides to protect the accused made it all but impossible to actually invoke these penalties…the system of judicial punishments could become brutal and barbaric unless administered in an atmosphere of the highest morality and piety. When these standards declined among the Jewish people, the Sanhedrin...voluntarily abolished this system of penalties" ([[Aryeh Kaplan|Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan]] in ''Handbook of Jewish Thought'', Volume II, pp. 170-71). In [[Conservative Judaism]] the death penalty was the subject of a [[responsa|responsum]] by its [[Committee on Jewish Law and Standards]]: :"The Talmud ruled out the admissibility of circumstantial evidence in cases which involved a capital crime. Two witnesses were required to testify that they saw the action with their own eyes. A man could not be found guilty of a capital crime through his own confession or through the testimony of immediate members of his family. The rabbis demanded a condition of cool premeditation in the act of crime before their would sanction the death penalty; the specific test on which they insisted was that the criminal be warned prior to the crime, and that the criminal indicate by responding to the warning, that he is fully aware of his deed, but that he is determined to go through with it. In effect this did away with the application of the death penalty. The rabbis were aware of this, and they declared openly that they found capital punishment repugnant to them… There is another reason which argues for the abolition of capital punishment. It is the fact of human fallibility. Too often we learn of people who were convicted of crimes and only later are new facts uncovered by which their innocence is established. The doors of the jail can be opened, in such cases we can partially undo the injustice. But the dead cannot be brought back to life again. We regard all forms of capital punishment as barbaric and obsolete..." Rabbi [[Ben Zion Bokser]], Statement on capital punishment, 1960. ''Proceedings of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards 1927-1970'', Volume III, p.1537-1538 ==Notes== {{Reflist}} *{{note|vat}}For a detailed discussion on the [[Roman Catholic Church]]'s view on capital punishment see chapter 3 of [[Pope John Paul II]]'s encyclical, [http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__PP.HTM Evangelium Vitae]. [[Category:Capital punishment]] [[Category:Religious law]] [[Category:Religion and politics]] [[Category:Religion and violence]]