Pacific Jewish Center | Rabbi » death penalty

Should a Death Row Inmate Be Able to Choose to Die?

rabbifink — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 00:33:32 +0000

This is something from a couple weeks ago. I know that there is a cardinal sin of blogging that prohibits one from writing about an article that is more than a few hours old, but timing is not a material issue to this article.

I refer to an LA Times article about a man who is on death row in San Quentin Prison in California. The man’s name is Jerry Stanley. By all accounts including his own, Stanley is guilty of several murders including the murders of a few of his wives. He admits to the crimes. He knows what he did was wrong. He knows he is going to be killed for his acts. He just doesn’t want to wait.

Stanley has asked for his execution. He doesn’t care how they do it. He doesn’t care if they want to test new drugs or methods of execution on him. All Stanley wants is to be killed soon.

Lawyers are assigned to all death row inmates and their job is to file appeals on behalf of their clients. Stanley has asked that no appeals be filed on his behalf.

It’s to the point that if he is not given an execution date, Stanley will stop taking his medications and will not eat until that kills him.

This has triggered a debate among supporters and opponents of the death penalty. In fact, my good old pal Dudley Sharp even got a quote in the LA Times article. (Dudley spent considerable time on this blog and DovBear telling us how not administering the death penalty is immoral. See: A Moral Argument Against The Death Penalty and The Death Penalty).

I thought about what the analogous case would be in Jewish Law. If a man is sentenced to death (very, very rare) and he committed suicide before the execution was administered or he was killed by a third party and not the executioners, I believe that the man would liable in Heaven for suicide and the killer would be liable for murder. (I believe. I have not done extensive research, but nothing that I can recall tells me this is untrue.)

Thus, there is a sanctity of life that cannot be tinkered with by non-court appointed officials. There is an “appeals” procedure in Jewish law whereby one who has information about the man on death row they can do so before the man is executed. I don’t think the person of death row can waive that time in between the sentencing and the execution (very short time period).

It seems that the only legal way for a human being to be killed is through the proper procedures and by the hands of the court. That is the only way. If so, I think it would be the same for Mr. Stanley. His life has sanctity whether he cares about it or not. We, the people, cannot take his life until all procedures are satisfied. Personally, I don’t think a secular, flawed justice system can ever satisfy those procedures, but that is a completely different topic.

In my view, Mr. Stanley cannot force the state to execute him. It is not his choice to make. It is decision that rests upon those who are entrusted with task of meting out justice. An unenviable task. But it is their job. It is not Mr. Stanley’s job.

Why would we place someone’s life in the hands of a murderer? Clearly, he does not have the respect for life that is necessary when making these kinds of decisions.

Postscript: I think this case sharpens an irony with regard to the death penalty. I am arguing that Stanley cannot be killed based on his own preferences because of the sanctity of life. Conservatives who would not mind killing this guy based on his personal decisions fight vociferously against DNRs and abortion based on the same argument.

Link: LA Times

World Against the Death Penalty Day

rabbifink — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 07:12:11 +0000

October 10, 2010 (10/10/10) has been selected as the 8th World Against the Death Penalty Day. See: here.

That is today.

This year’s DATDP is dedicated to the United States of America where 52 people were executed in 2009 and 106 death sentences were handed down.

I wholeheartedly support abolishing the death penalty.

Far too many innocent people have been exonerated before they were executed and unfortunately many were executed before they were exonerated. This is blood on our hands.

Further, as I have argued before, I believe there is a moral issue with man made laws being used to execute other human beings, especially when those people pose no threat if they are incarcerated. See A Moral Argument Against The Death Penalty for my basic argument.

Let us strive for a day where there is no murder and no need to continue the debate over the death penalty…

A Moral Argument Against The Death Penalty

rabbifink — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:03:42 +0000

In the last few months there have been a few death penalty executions. Most notably the D.C. Sniper was executed on November 10, 2009. Since that time I have been thinking about the death penalty. I have discussed it on Twitter and in real life.

The last unit of our Criminal Law course was the Death Penalty. Professor Levenson asked for volunteers to argue for and against the death penal. Normally, I don’t jump at opportunities like this, I prefer to watch and observe other students try to make coherent arguments in front of their skeptical peers… Yet, my had shot up. It was almost involuntary. And I found myself on the side representing “against” the Death Penalty.

There were three of us and we split duties. I chose to make the moral argument against the death penalty. What follows was my basic argument.

In the USA, murder is against the law. One citizen may not take the life of another. This is a good law and is a basic law in any civilized country. The law is based upon our sense of morality. That means that the starting point when thinking about the morality of taking another’s life is, that it is immoral.

Of course there are exceptions. One who fears for his life may defend his life and is justified in killing his would-be murderer. This is called self-defense.

The application of this defense is very specific. There are other defenses or justifications to First Degree Murder but none will serve as a complete defense, they will only mitigate the charge or perhaps affect the sentencing. In other words, taking the life of another is never completely justified unless it to save one’s own life.

There should be no exception for the government. The State and Federal Governments have a duty to observe the same laws of morality the citizens must observe. The only moral excuse for killing is in self defense. Self defense can only be argued when the danger is imminent. Once a murderer is apprehended and incarcerated there is no self defense excuse. An incarcerated prisoner poses no imminent danger, thus the taking of his or her life is by definition immoral.

We are not bound to punish criminals by the same heinous acts they committed. The law of our country does not hold lex talionis. We don’t punish a criminal with the same act he criminally committed. We shudder at the thought of torturing a torturer or raping a rapist or battering a batterer, how could we be so callous about taking the life of a killer.

We have no moral ground to stand on if we take the life of a murderer. Taking the life of a killer simply turns us into murderers.

The D.C. Sniper's Execution

rabbifink — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:31:39 +0000

In 2002 we were living in Baltimore Maryland. A few short miles away two snipers were picking off random people and shooting them to death.

There was no explanation, no specific people were targeted, just random people being gunned down from a perch a few hundred feet away.

The entire region was in a panic. Every time we went to a gas station or shopping center there was a legitimate fear of being gunned down. The feeling cannot be simply described. It was crazy.

Then they found the snipers. I will never forget how they were discovered. They were sleeping in their car in broad daylight at a rest stop. The utter stupidity of these fiends is mind blowing. They had a sophisticated system of shooting people from a distance ala Jason Bourne and they get caught in public! Ridiculous.

It seems so long ago, but today, perhaps as you read this blog post, the D.C. Sniper is being executed. Some of the victims’ surviving fmaliy will be on hand to witness it. I cannot imagine attending an execution but some people need to see justice served. But of course, it is not justice. Those who are dead will never return no matter whether the Sniper gets the death penalty or life in prison like his juvenile partner.

The death penalty is uncomfortable for many and untenable for others. There will be protests and vigils tonight as the Sniper is executed. At the very least we must consider our lives and making the most of our opportunities and choices. We should also be thankful to the justice system for preventing the Sniper from sniping again. But most of all, we should appreciate our freedom with which we live our lives in America. The freedom that John Allen Muhammad sought to take away from us all.

It is an appropriate perspective in light of last week’s shooting at Fort Hood when another man who wished to take away freedom and life from innocent people took thirteen lives.

Let us make sure that we use our freedom well and support those who protect that freedom.