'After all, murderers' lives should be forfeit'
Israel has the death penalty on its books; but at least so far this nation has actually executed only one person, Adolf Eichmann. Why have they been so parsimonious in terms of engaging in this practice? There are prisoners in its jails who have committed murder, and thus have relinquished the right to their own lives. They have revealed, demonstrated, their lack of respect for human life; why should their own be saved?
This can only be speculative, but one reason for this failure might be a vestige from the founding of this country. Remember, for the first few decades of its life since 1948, it was ruled by a series of left-wing governments. For them, execution is inhumane, so much so that only the one exception was ever made to this general rule.
Another possible explanation is that the death penalty does not reduce the murder rate. Since it is per se uncivilized, at least in the view of progressives, the conclusion is to not act upon it. This premise is indeed true, at least insofar as empirical evidence from the U.S. is concerned. There is no statistically significant difference in the murder rate between those states that have legalized the death penalty and those which have not. However according to the research of Isaac Ehrlich and others, while the death penalty has no impact on the subsequent rate of murder, executions certainly do. They drastically reduce them. Thus this practice has positive results for civilized values.
The Israeli policy is similar to that of California: both have legalized the death penalty, neither employs is except on very rare occasions in the former case. Israel should break away from this policy, and be ready to execute at least those guilty of first-degree murder.
How would this help that country? For one thing, there would be fewer domestic murders.
More importantly, since what Israelis have to fear is not so much murders from fellow citizens, but rather those that emanate from abroad. The only Jewish state in the world now has in its jails several thousand Arab prisoners, many of whom perfectly fit this bill. Almost 600 are serving life sentences for murder.
Imagine the following message being sent out to terrorists from Hamas to quell their taking of hostages: It will be in your best interest to release all hostages immediately. For if you do not, then each day of their captivity we will execute one imprisoned member of your organization who is guilty of murder. Also, be very careful indeed to take good care of those hostages; immediately return all who are sickly, elderly, etc., for if one any of them were to perish while in captivity, we will execute 10 of the aforesaid prisoners.
Would this threat be justified? It is difficult to see why not. After all, murderers’ lives should be forfeit. They have acted in a manner consistent with the view that human life is not sacrosanct. Why should their own lives be treated any differently?
Would this work from a pragmatic perspective? It is difficult to say. It is possible that Hamas will borrow a leaf from the defiant blackmailee who asserts: “Publish and be damned.” Its leadership will dare Israel to execute such murderers, hoping to recoup those losses in the form of sympathetic world opinion. It is even possible that these terrorists will start to execute their Israeli captives. That would indeed be a big loss; but without this threat, as at present, many captives are already returned only after death. Further, if Hamas does that, further escalation is always possible. This suggestion is predicated upon the notion that the stick is a better strategy than the carrot.
At the very least, this tactic should be discussed at the highest level of Israeli leadership. It provides a strategy that is not now in the playbook of the IDF. Which is the best way to deal with terrorists such as Hamas? With slaps on the wrist lawn-mowing, the previous policy which Israel at present, thankfully, is eschewing? Or with a heavy-handed response to these barbarians which includes threats of this sort?
Nor should we ignore the fact that under these conditions it may become far more difficult for the future Hamas’s of the world to recruit new members. With no executions, murderers such as Yahya Sinwar can look upon a stint in an Israeli jail as a bit of a vacation, and enjoy the accompanying medical tourism (his very life was saved by a Jewish dentist while he was in prison). A member of this terrorist organization can rely upon being freed, intact, at least eventually. With the Israeli adoption of this harsher execution policy, such benefits might not for long be available.
Israel made one exception in the case of Adolf Eichmann. Why not make other such exemptions in behalf of hostages captured by Hamas?
Sources:
Isaac Ehrlich:
Ehrlich, Isaac. 1975B. “The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment — A Question of Life and Death,” American Economic Review, Vol. 65 (3), June, pp. 397-417
Ehrlich, Isaac. 1976A. “Deterrence: Evidence and Inference,” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 85 (2), December, pp. 209-227.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@wndnewscenter.org.
SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!
