Israel has finally, at long last, instituted the death penalty for terrorists. The pertinent part of the law reads as follows: “Whoever intentionally causes the death of a person with the intention of harming a citizen or resident of Israel, with the aim of denying the existence of the State of Israel, shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment, and one of these punishments only.”
The exact wording of the law from Perplexity:
Whoever intentionally causes the death of a person with the intention of harming a citizen or resident of Israel, with the aim of denying the existence of the State of Israel, shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment, and one of these punishments only.
Note, its coverage is by no means limited to any one group of people, for instance, Palestinians, or occupants of Judea and Samaria. Rather, it pertains to all people, Jews included. It will be imposed upon “whoever” perpetrates such an evil crime; that means anyone, with no exceptions.
There is only one thing to add: for maximum effect, these executions of murdering terrorists should be public, not private.
Already, with this law only a few hours old, it has been wildly misinterpreted. For example, according to a German spokesman: it “would likely apply exclusively to Palestinians in the Palestinian territories.” No. The law clearly states that anyone found guilty of such a heinous crime would be dealt with in this manner.
The Key Is To Make It Mandatory
The death penalty is all well and good. But if it is not mandatory, it will do little in reducing the subsequent murder rate. Isaac Ehrlich has done yeoman statistical work on this matter, and finds, with the U.S. as an example, that there is no significant difference in the murder rate between those states that have enacted the death penalty and those that have not.
But actual executions are an entirely different matter. In that case, there is a significant statistical divergence between states with the death penalty on the books that actually put convicted murderers to death, and those that do not (California is an example of the latter). Ehrlich found that each single execution reduced the number of murders in its aftermath by eight! If that does not force would be terrorists — against Israelis or citizens of any other jurisdiction that adopts such a law — to sit up and take notice, well, it will be as good a try as anything that can be imagined.
Another criticism of this new law in the Jewish state is that it is “cruel and unusual” for the government to kill anyone, no matter how much they deserve such punishment. Israeli doctors have refused to conduct lethal injections on supposedly moral grounds. (The death penalty will be imposed by hanging, instead). But this reservation, too, is without merit.
A Life for a Life
Consider the following. Imagine we now have a machine that can transfer the life out of one person into the body of another (I am inspired by Robert Nozick’s use of such examples in his philosophical analyses). Whereupon Mr. A murders Mr. B. Would it be justified to place the former into this machine, alongside the now dead body of the latter, and flip the switch? Then, the life will flow out of A and into B. When they emerge from this machine, B will once again be alive and A will be a dead body for the first time.
Would this be justified? It would be the essence of justice. After all, A “stole” the life of B. A robbed B of his life. If A car-jacked B, surely, the proper response of the judiciary would be to compel A to return B’s car to him (more serious penalties should also be imposed, but that is another matter). Well, in the case of murder, A took B’s life. Surely, there can be no more just punishment than, with the help of this machine, to compel A to give back to B his life at the cost of his own.
Now, of course, we have no such machines. But this theoretical construct ought to put paid to the idea that A’s life is somehow sacrosanct. No, he is no longer the proper owner of his own life. He now owes it to his victim.
This brilliant new Israeli law thus passes two very stringent challenges. From a pragmatic or utilitarian perspective, it will save innocent lives both Jewish and Arab. From a deontological point of view, it also passes with flying colors: it constitutes the epitemy of justice.
There is only one thing to add: for maximum effect, these executions of murdering terrorists should be public, not private. They should be broadcast on television.
READ MORE from Walter E. Block:
America’s Silent Kidney Crisis