The Misguided Reliance in American Jurisprudence on Jewish Law to Support the Moral Legitimacy of Capital Punishment

By Rudolph, Daniel A. | American Criminal Law Review, Winter 1996 | Go to article overview

The Misguided Reliance in American Jurisprudence on Jewish Law to Support the Moral Legitimacy of Capital Punishment


Rudolph, Daniel A., American Criminal Law Review


I. INTRODUCTION

The debate over capital punishment in the United States, particularly during the last quarter century, has engendered emotional diatribe regarding not only the constitutionality of the death penalty but also its inherent legitimacy within the spheres of natural law, religion, and societal morality. Few issues trigger ethical questions that transcend mere written law to a greater degree than does capital punishment, as the interest at stake, human life, is that which we deem to be the most valuable.

In the context of advocating the death penalty, attorneys, politicians and judges have at times cited the Bible to support the moral legitimacy of capital punishment. While these statements correctly reflect the text of the Bible, they are deceptive and misrepresent the actual historical practice under Jewish law.

This Note first summarizes the current legal status of capital punishment in American law. After providing examples of the reliance on the Bible in American jurisprudential discussions of capital punishment, the Note introduces the general sources of Jewish law and examines the biblical origins of the death penalty. It then discusses the rabbinical barriers to imposition of the death penalty established through interpretation, a general reluctance to impose capital sentences in Jewish law, and the numerous procedural and evidentiary barriers set up by the rabbis. The Note concludes that an extreme reluctance to impose the death penalty, combined with the array of barriers, rendered capital punishment virtually nonexistent in practice under Jewish law. The American legal system has generally ignored this reality, resulting in misrepresentations of the actual practice under Jewish law.

II. BACKGROUND

Death penalty boosters have long attempted to superimpose the norms of the Jewish legal system onto American jurisprudence.(1) This section first summarizes0 the historical development and current legal status of capital punishment under American law and then provides examples of how the state, on occasion, relies on Judeo-Christian religious authority to support imposition of the death penalty in a particular case.

A. Capital Punishment in American Law

In Gregg v. Georgia,(2) the Supreme Court held that the death penalty is not inherently cruel, and thus does not constitute a per se violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.(3) This decision clarified an area of law that had been rendered murky by the Court's decision in Furman v. Georgia,(4) in which each of the nine Justices wrote a separate opinion. The Gregg Court justified Georgia's punishment scheme, in part, on the death penalty's long history of acceptance both in the United States and in England,(5) and out of respect for the legislative decisions of states that had enacted capital punishment statutes.(6)

The Court subjected the constitutionality of capital punishment to certain limitations,(7) but stated that the requirement that the death penalty "not be imposed in an arbitrary or capricious manner can be met by a carefully drafted statute that ensures that the sentencing authority is given adequate information and guidance."(8) Today, thirty-eight states and the federal government have death penalty statutes,(9) and in 1993 there were more than 2800 prisoners on death row.(10) The willingness of states to impose capital punishment can be attributed in part to the perception that it is sanctioned by Jewish law.

B. Misguided Reliance on Jewish Law, The Bible, And The Talmud In American Death Penalty Jurisprudence

Assertions that biblical law supports the legality of the death penalty arise most frequently in the arguments of prosecuting attorneys to juries in capital cases. The North Carolina Supreme Court recently upheld as proper the following admonition to the jury by a prosecutor: "Well the Bible . . . says an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

The Misguided Reliance in American Jurisprudence on Jewish Law to Support the Moral Legitimacy of Capital Punishment
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.