Judaism & the Death Penalty (Edexcel GCSE Religious Studies B) : Revision Note

The nature and purpose of capital punishment

The nature and purpose of capital punishment

• Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the execution of a person as punishment for a crime

• Laws vary between countries but it is usually reserved for the most serious offences, such as:

  • murder

  • treason

  • terrorism

• The purpose of capital punishment is to:

  • punish offenders

  • deter others from committing similar crimes

• Methods of execution (depending on the country) include:

  • lethal injection

  • hanging

  • firing squad

  • electrocution

• Capital punishment is a controversial issue with many people supporting its use and many people opposing it

  • Supporters argue it delivers justice and protects society

  • Opponents believe it is inhumane, irreversible if mistakes are made, and may not effectively deter crime

• Some countries, like the USA and China, still practice capital punishment, while others, such as the UK and Canada, have abolished it

Divergent Jewish attitudes towards capital punishment

Jewish attitudes and teachings for and against capital punishment

• Judaism has a complex view of capital punishment, as it is mentioned in the Torah but is surrounded by strict laws and conditions

Orthodox Judaism

• Orthodox Judaism acknowledges that the Torah permits the death penalty but emphasises that the Talmud’s safeguards make it almost impossible to apply in practice

  • Most Orthodox Jews are against the death penalty due to the risk of error and the sanctity of life

Reform and Progressive Judaism

• Reform and Progressive Jews are strongly opposed to capital punishment, due to the ethical and moral risks involved

  • They often point to rabbinic teachings that highlight mercy, forgiveness, and rehabilitation

Jewish teachings and capital punishment

• There are several teachings and texts which seem to support capital punishment within Judaism

  • For example, the Torah has teachings and texts that support capital punishment for serious crimes

• Exodus 21:12: ‘Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death’

• Leviticus 20:10: Adultery is punishable by death

• Deuteronomy 24:7: ‘If a man is found kidnapping any of his brothers… that man shall die’

• These verses show that the Torah allows the death penalty for offences like murder, kidnapping, and certain sexual crimes

• Some Jewish teaching highlights the importance of justice

  • For example, ‘If there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth’ (Exodus 21:23-25)

  • This principle of middah k’neged middah (measure for measure) ensures that the punishment fits the crime, supporting the idea that the ultimate punishment for taking a life is losing one's own

• However, there are also teachings and texts which are more cautious or opposed to the death penalty

  • The Talmud has strict safeguards about when capital punishment should occur

• Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness’

• This ensures fairness and prevents wrongful convictions

• The Talmud also imposes additional safeguards:

  • Two witnesses must independently agree on every detail of the crime

  • The accused must be explicitly warned beforehand and acknowledge the warning (Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:1) 

• Jewish teachings highlight the importance of the sanctity of life and the risk of making mistakes

• All human life is sacred because everyone is made in the image of God (B’tzelem Elohim)

• The principle of pikuach nefesh overrides almost all other commandments, underscoring the importance of preserving life whenever possible

• There is opposition to the death penalty from influential Jewish leaders

  • Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon argued against the death penalty, stating

• This reflects a strong preference for mercy and rehabilitation

Non-religious attitudes towards capital punishment and Jewish responses

Humanist and Atheist attitudes to capital punishment

• Humanists and Atheists often oppose capital punishment, but opinions can vary because their beliefs are not based on religious doctrines

  • Instead, they rely on reason, evidence, and ethics to form their views

• Most humanists would be against the death penalty because they believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every human being

• Taking a life, even a criminal’s, is seen as undermining this value

• For many humanists, the risk of executing an innocent person is unacceptable

  • Once carried out, the death penalty is irreversible, making mistakes a major ethical concern

• Studies often show that the death penalty does not effectively deter crime

• Humanists and Atheists argue that focusing on rehabilitation is more effective

• Many Humanists and Atheists view capital punishment as outdated and inhumane, reflecting a desire for revenge rather than justice

• Evidence suggests the death penalty disproportionately affects disadvantaged groups, such as the poor and minorities, leading humanists to question its fairness

• However, some Atheists may argue that capital punishment is a way to ensure justice, especially for heinous crimes like mass murder or terrorism

  • Removing dangerous individuals permanently can protect society, especially if there is a risk of reoffending

• Humanists advocate for restorative justice, where offenders are helped to take responsibility, make amends, and reintegrate into society where possible

  • They emphasise addressing the root causes of crime, such as poverty or lack of education, to prevent reoffending

• In summary:

  • Humanists generally oppose capital punishment, focusing on human dignity, fairness, and rehabilitation

  • Atheist views will vary but are often shaped by ethical considerations like justice, equality, and the effectiveness of punishment

Jewish responses to Humanist and Atheist attitudes to capital punishment

• Judaism shares some common ground with Humanist and Atheist views on capital punishment

  • Jews, like Humanists, value the sanctity of human life (humans are made in God’s image, Genesis 1:27)

    • Both emphasise the importance of safeguarding innocent lives and are cautious about the irreversible nature of capital punishment

• Jewish law (Halakhah) imposes strict safeguards to avoid wrongful execution, similar to Humanist concerns about judicial errors

  • The Talmud’s legal framework makes the death penalty almost impossible to carry out

• Judaism, like Humanists, are concerned about fairness

  • Jewish teachings highlight the need for impartial justice and protection of vulnerable groups

• Judaism values teshuvah (repentance) and encourages wrongdoers to reform and seek forgiveness

  • This aligns with Humanist support for rehabilitation over retribution

• However, there are some distinct differences between Humanist and Atheist views and Judaism on capital punishment

  • Jewish opposition to capital punishment often stems from divine law and the Torah. Judaism views justice as divinely mandated, not purely human-derived

  • Humanists and Atheists base their views on reason, evidence, and secular ethics

• The Torah allows the death penalty for severe crimes (for example, murder Exodus 21:12) This divine authorisation makes it acceptable in theory, even if rarely implemented

  • Humanists often reject the death penalty entirely as unethical

• Some Jewish teachings support the death penalty as a deterrent or as a way to uphold justice in extreme cases

  • Humanists are more likely to challenge the idea that capital punishment deters crime and instead look for alternative deterrents 

• Judaism believes in divine judgment and accountability beyond this life, which can influence views on justice and punishment

  • Atheists, who generally reject the concept of an afterlife, focus solely on justice in this world

Situation ethics and capital punishment

• Situation ethics, developed by Joseph Fletcher, is a Christian ethical theory that emphasises making moral decisions based on the most loving outcome (agape love) in a specific situation, rather than following fixed rules

• The key principles of situation ethics are:

  • Love is the only absolute: The most loving thing to do is always the right thing

  • No fixed rules: Moral decisions depend on the situation, not strict laws or traditions

  • Focus on consequences: The outcome of an action determines its morality

• There are some arguments in favour of capital punishment from situation ethics

  • If executing a criminal prevents future harm and protects innocent lives, it might be the most loving choice

    • For example, using the death penalty for a dangerous serial killer could save others and bring justice for victims

• However, there are also arguments against capital punishment from situation ethics

  • If it causes unnecessary suffering or fails to promote love and justice, it would not be supported

    • For example, executing someone wrongfully convicted would be unloving and unjust

• Situation ethics would evaluate capital punishment case by case, considering factors like:

  • the crime committed

  • the potential for rehabilitation

  • the impact on the victim’s family and society

• To summarise, situation ethics does not strictly support or oppose capital punishment but instead asks: What is the most loving action in this situation?

Jewish responses to Situation ethics and capital punishment

• There are similarities and differences between the approach of situation ethics and the teachings of Judaism about capital punishment

• One similarity is that situation ethics and Jewish teachings may argue that each situation should be judged individually 

  • Situation ethics: Decisions depend on the most loving outcome in a specific situation, without rigid rules

  • Jewish law: While the Torah prescribes the death penalty, the Talmud’s stringent safeguards often require evaluating each case individually, making its application rare

• Both approaches prioritise careful consideration of the circumstances

• Another similarity is that both approaches value human life

  • Situation ethics: Focuses on the loving, compassionate outcome, which often involves protecting or preserving life

  • Judaism: Emphasises the sanctity of life and avoids the death penalty unless absolutely necessary to maintain justice or protect society

• Both highlight balancing justice with compassion:

  • Situation ethics seeks the most loving action, which may sometimes involve mercy instead of punishment

  • Jewish law values teshuvah (repentance) and often favours alternatives to execution unless justice demands it

• However, there are distinct differences between the approach from situation ethics and Jewish teaching about capital punishment

• There are differences about the origins of the moral authority for decision-making

  • Situation ethics: Relies on love (agape) as the guiding principle, rejecting rigid moral absolutes

  • Judaism: Grounded in divine law (Torah and Talmud), which provides fixed moral frameworks but allows for interpretation

• There may also be disagreement about the role of rules in making moral decisions like this

  • Situation ethics: Rejects fixed laws entirely, focusing solely on outcomes

  • Judaism: Retains divine commandments as a foundation, even when the death penalty is practically impossible to enforce

• They also come from different religious backgrounds

  • Situation ethics is a Christian theory based on love as modelled by Jesus

  • Judaism sees justice as a divine mandate, emphasising that humans act as God’s agents in pursuing justice and fairness