Jewish Choices, Jewish Voices: Social Justice

Case Study

105 Case Study Criminal Justice 1. The Rationales and Forms of Punishment What should be the aim of punishment? Should it be retribution, compensation, deterrence, rehabilitation, safety, or something else? Is prison the most effective way of achieving any of those goals, or should some mode of alternative punishment and/or preventive measures be the focus of our efforts to deal with crime? Some jurisdictions are now using restorative justice programs, in which the perpetrators of property crimes meet their victims and have to enter into a contract with them to restore what was lost as part or all of their punishment. Should programs of restorative justice be implemented more widely than they are now? Is this approach sufficient to achieve the various goals of punishment? Presumably, a punishment should fit the crime. Is that possible if some states punish certain crimes much more severely than others? Furthermore , the U.S. imprisons a much greater percentage of its citizens than any other Western country. How do we know that this is both an appropriate and effective way of addressing crime? How does one determine what an appropriate punishment for a crime is in the first place? What percentage of state and federal budgets should be devoted to enforcing the law instead of to social needs like education, infrastructure , health care, welfare, culture, and so forth? 2. The Death Penalty As of 2009, 15 U.S. states and most other fully developed countries do not have capital punishment. The arguments against capital punishment include: convicted individuals may be innocent; the cost of the appeals process in a capital case is too great; it makes the United States seem uncivilized to other countries who don’t use the practice; human beings do not have the right to play God; it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Bill of Rights; it does not effectively deter crime; and it has been disproportionately applied to racial minorities and the poor. Case 4: Criminal Justice Jewish Choices, Jewish Voices: SOCIAL JUSTICE 106 The arguments for capital punishment include: it represents true justice in its eye-for-an-eye approach; it avenges both the victim and society; it protects society, preventing the convicted criminal from committing further crimes; it deters others from committing such crimes; by perpetrating a capital crime, the criminal implicitly consents to the death penalty; and it symbolically expresses the wrath of society in response to such crimes. Although the Torah mandates capital punishment for many violations , including desecration of the Sabbath, the Rabbis used the rules of evidence and other legal mechanisms to virtually abrogate that mandate. In fact, the Mishnah (Mak. 1:10) calls a court that hands down a capital sentence just once in seven years, a “bloody court.” Is the use of capital punishment justified? Even if it can be justified, is it morally acceptable? 107 Traditional Sources Compiled by Uzi Weingarten and the Editors Forms of Punishment 1. Exodus 21:37, 22:3 When a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox, and four sheep for the sheep … But if what he stole—whether ox or ass or sheep—is found alive in his possession, he shall pay double. 2. Rashi to Exodus 21:37 Rabban Yohanan b. Zaccai says: God cared for the dignity of people. An ox walks on its legs, and [so] the thief was not demeaned by carrying it on his shoulders; he [therefore] pays five [times the value]. A sheep that he carried on his shoulder he pays four [times the value], since he (i.e., the thief) was demeaned. Rabbi Meir says: Come see how great is the value of work! An ox, whose loss causes the owner loss of work [since he is unable to plow, etc., the thief repays] fivefold. A sheep, whose loss does not cause loss of work, [the thief repays] fourfold. 3. Exodus 21:22–25 When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning [of the age of the embryo]. But if other damage ensues [to the woman], the penalty shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise...