Now that's a bit harsh for adulterers, kids who disobey their parents, idol worshipers, and Jews who broke the Sabbath, but even so, among the Jews, it was important that the death penalty not to be used for vengeance or hatred for the evildoer or to benefit the community. Eventually in 30 A.D. the Sanhedrin decided the death penalty was too barbaric and placed so many restrictions (1) on its use that it was effectively abolished.

In 1566 the Catholic Church used the above quote by David as excuse to continue the use of the death penalty by civil authorities (2) even though they were instructed (Romans 12:19-21) that "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."

This was the period that began the silly Christian notion that Capital Punishment repressed violence and thievery. In 18th century Christian England it was quite common to execute even women for such crimes as passing bad checks, pickpocketing, burglary and other forms of robbery. For example, Anne Harris was executed in 1708 at the age of 20 for shoplifting (3).

Ah, Christians and their notions of mercy and compassion - you gotta love em. [Yes, yes, Jews were once barbaric savages, but at least they grew out of that.]

As for the mistaken theory of deterrence, it is a known fact that while the hangman was hanging pickpockets, other pickpockets were plying their trade among the populace who came to gawk at the executions.

And despite this known historical fact, New York Governor George Pataki was stupid enough to utter this unsubstantiated nonsense (4): "Capital punishment gives killers good cause to fear arrest and conviction."

Actually, no. A study at Centre College in 2000 showed that the overwhelming majority of the most violent criminals "either perceive no risk of apprehension or have no thought about the likely punishments for their crimes. Still more criminals are undeterred by harsher punishments because drugs, psychosis, ego, revenge, or fight-or-flight impulses inhibit the desired responses to traditional prevention methods." (5)

The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, surpassing gulag-happy Russia and jail-the-opposition China. But ignoring those tyrannical regimes, we imprison people for crimes that other nations merely give fines for. And the result? In overall crimes we rank the highest, followed by Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and South Africa. And the only reason that Germany, the United Kingdom, France are up there at all is because they have the highest concentration of Muslims in Europe.

But if draconian punishments are a deterrence and the US leads in draconian punishments, why are we number one in crime? Shouldn't some of that dracone actually deter crime?

Reader Francis W. Porretto in response to my article I oppose the death penalty but I like boobs, left this comment: "Thomas Sowell offers this challenge: Name one executed murderer who has killed again. So far, no takers."

I take the challenge:

1. Every executed murderer has indeed caused the murder of even more victims. Facts bear this out: of all developed, supposedly civilized nations we have the highest murder rates compared to countries that have outlawed the death penalty. The death penalty, by its mere exercise causes more murders.


2. Killing even a petty criminal (who has yet to commit a murder) also precludes the possibility of future murders since a certain percentage of them go on to commit murders, therefore logic would dictate that we could equally ask, "name one executed petty criminal who has killed in the future?" Just because the answer is the same in both cases does not mean the death penalty is proper or right.


3. Sowell ignores the possibility of an innocent person being executed. I suppose in that case he would assert that that particular poor shlub will not kill anyone in the future as well. So in reality, Sowell is really saying, execute anyone, innocent or guilty, and he will never kill in the future.

   And even if it is true that executing innocent people prevents future murders, does that make it less barbaric?

   Minority Report, anyone?

My insulting remarks against Christians apply to those who insist on the death penalty despite knowing that innocent people are caught in the net and who do so because vengeance means more to them than justice. It should be noted that 29% of Protestants and 34% of Catholics do not support the death penalty [DeathPenaltyInfo]. These are obviously true Christians and I do not mean to disparage them.

ENDNOTES

(1):

faq.org, What is the Jewish position on Capital Punishment?

Jewish law strongly emphasizes the significance and value of every soul, including those of offenders. For this reason only a twenty-three member court, a small Sanhedrin, is authorized to try capital crimes. Only prominent scholars, well-versed in the wisdom of the Torah as well as in other scholarly disciplines, and who possess excellent values, qualify for membership on this court. A candidate must be humble, G-d fearing, one who despises money, a lover of truth, beloved by people for his qualities of goodness and humility, and who is sociable, self-composed, compassionate and not the subject of any gossip. For this reason a childless person or a very old one, who has forgotten the pain of raising children, is not qualified for membership on the court, because this person might lack compassion and become unduly harsh with offenders.

Furthermore, these righteous and excellent judges cannot try offenders of capital crimes in a court that consists of less than twenty three members. In addition, three rows of scholars (candidates for serving on the court) are seated in front of the court, watch the proceeding and alert the court to any error which might lead to an unlawful conviction. These scholars, however, cannot intervene when the error favors the defendant.

Circumstantial evidence is inadmissible; to convict the defendant two qualified witnesses who have no material interest in the case are required. Prosecution witnesses are disqualified if they are motivated by a desire to testify in order to escape punishment. The witnesses must be warned about the graveness of perjury in general and in connection with capital punishment in particular. Furthermore, the defendant must have been warned prior to committing the crime about its severity and must have acknowledged an awareness of it.

Because of all these requirements, execution of criminals in the Jewish community was rare, taking place only once in many years. Furthermore, capital crimes were tried only at the time of the Holy Temple, in which the Great Sanhedrin, consisting of seventy one members, was housed. Following the destruction of the Temple, capital crimes were not tried in Jewish courts even when they were granted jurisdiction by the state to try Jewish criminals according to Jewish law.

Wiki, Religion and capital punishment

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 AD, i.e. in 30 AD, 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.

Thus, it can be argued that Judaism is essentially anti-death penalty.

...

The 12th-century Jewish legal scholar Maimonides famous[ly] stated that "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." 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.

(2):

Catechetics Online, the catechism of the council of trent

[Ordered by the Fathers of the Council of Trent under the authority of Pope Pius IV and published in 1566 by St Charles Boromeo under the authority of Pope St. Pius V]

EXECUTION OF CRIMINALS

Another kind of 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. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I Put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

(3):

Crime and punishment in eighteenth-century England, Page 125-126

Even the defenders of draconian deterrence were forced to admit the skew effects of the law. In his famous 1777 speech Sir William Meredith instanced the notorios case of Mary Jones, who was destitute and her children starving. She took a piece of raw linen off a shop counter but put it back when the shopkeeper saw her. For this alone she was hanged.

Anne Harris, executed in 1708 at the age of 20 for shoplifting, was already a "hempen widow" twice over.

(4):

Prodeathpenalty.com, Death penalty is a deterrent

USA Today - March 1997 Capital punishment gives killers good cause to fear arrest and conviction.

SEPT. 1, 1995, marked the end of a long fight for justice in New York and the beginning of a new era in our state that promises safer communities, fewer victims of crime, and renewed personal freedom. For 22 consecutive years, my predecessors had ignored the urgent calls for justice from our citizens their repeated and pressing demands for the death penalty in New York State. Even after the legislature passed a reinstatement of the capital punishment law, it was vetoed for 18 years in a row. (Twelve of those vetoes came from the pen of former Gov. Mario Cuomo.)

That was wrong. To fight and deter crime effectively, individuals must have every tool government can afford them, including the death penalty. Upon taking office, I immediately began the process of reinstating the death penalty. Two months later, I signed the death penalty into law for the most heinous and ruthless killers in our society.

(5):

Social Science Research Network, The Deterrence Hypothesis and Picking Pockets at the Pickpocket's Hanging

The tenet that harsher penalties could substantially reduce crime rates rests on the assumption that currently active criminals weigh the costs and benefits of their contemplated acts. Existing and proposed crime strategies exhibit this belief, as does a large and growing segment of the crime literature. Using a new approach, this study examines the premise that criminals make informed and rational decisions, presents findings on the influences affecting criminals, and discusses crime prevention strategies that respond to the apparent roots of criminal behavior. The results suggest that 76 percent of active criminals and 89 percent of the most violent criminals either perceive no risk of apprehension or have no thought about the likely punishments for their crimes. Still more criminals are undeterred by harsher punishments because drugs, psychosis, ego, revenge, or fight-or-flight impulses inhibit the desired responses to traditional prevention methods.