Reconsidering the death penalty

The death penalty as a means of fully assessing the value of human life

When considering the death penalty for the worst crime—a premeditated first-degree murder—a common thought is that it is too extreme a punishment. Many critics oppose the death penalty based on how it is applied in the American legal system[1], one of the last modern systems to retain it. Of major concern are the flaws in death row cases, particularly issues of race and wrongful convictions. Studies suggest that around 4% of those on death row have been wrongfully convicted[2]. These problems lead many to argue that the death penalty should be abolished.

I wish to challenge this conclusion. While I acknowledge the troubling aspects of the death penalty’s current implementation, the focus has shifted away from the deeper moral question: Is it right to take the life of another person as punishment for their severe actions? Opponents argue that, morally, it is wrong to kill another person, no matter how heinous the crime, and that the death penalty, using killing as punishment, lowers society’s moral standards, allowing the very act it seeks to condemn.

On the other hand, supporters argue that when someone deliberately takes another life, they forfeit their place in society. Furthermore, some believe that imposing the same punishment on the perpetrator does not lower society’s moral standards but rather may be the “fairest” response to such a crime[3].

While American jurisdictions that retain capital punishment consider first-degree murder grounds for the death penalty, the Israeli legal system offers a different perspective. In Israel, the death penalty for first-degree murder was abolished, and today it remains a possible punishment only for severe crimes such as treason, genocide, and crimes under the Law for the Execution of Justice Against Nazis and Their Helpers. The death penalty has been invoked twice: once for a murder in the 1950s, before the abolition of the death penalty for first-degree murder, and once when Adolf Eichmann was executed for his role in the Holocaust.

According to the Israeli perspective, for an individual to lose their right to be part of society, the crime must threaten the essence of the society itself. The crimes condemned by the Law for the Execution of Justice Against Nazis and Their Helpers were not just malicious; they were an existential challenge to humanity[4]. I propose this approach as a potential resolution to the moral tension the death penalty raises. While this view does not solve all logical challenges, particularly the concern that condemning killing by committing it raises issues, it could provide a framework for determining when the death penalty is morally justifiable.

The key moral argument in favor of the death penalty is that it sends a message about the value society places on human life. By removing those who threaten humanity’s survival, society reinforces its moral commitment to protecting life.

But the question remains: When does a crime reach the level where the perpetrator no longer deserves to be part of society? This is a difficult question, and I admit it is not easily answered. In Israel, the law was designed to address Nazi war crimes, crimes so extreme that no other punishment could be considered sufficient. The law was also intended to ensure such crimes would never be repeated. However, recent events, particularly the attacks on October 7, 2023, and other crimes of terror that are committed to challenge the existence of the Jewish people in the state of Israel, have revived this debate. The main question now is whether the law was specifically intended for Nazi war crimes or can be applied more broadly to crimes similar enough to Nazi atrocities, thus qualifying for the death penalty.

While I recognize the political implications of this question, from an academic perspective, it contributes to the broader death penalty debate. I am not advocating that the perpetrators of the October 7th attacks should be executed. Rather, I am suggesting that we reconsider the death penalty for extreme offenses, so the moral debate fully accounts for the value of human life and the role of society in protecting it.

---

[1] Bedau, Hugo Adam, ‘An Abolitionist’s Survey of the Death Penalty in America Today’, in Hugo Adam Bedau, and Paul G Cassell (eds), Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? The Experts On Both Sides Make Their Case (New York, NY, 2004; online edn, Oxford Academic, 31 Oct. 

[2] Innocence Project. (n.d.). Innocence and the death penalty. Innocence Project. Retrieved February 4, 2025, from https://innocenceproject.org/innocence-and-the-death-penalty/

[3] Pojman, Louis P. In Defense of the Death Penalty. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 11 (2):11-16. (1997)

[4] Yaron Ungar, The Death Penalty – Theoretical Background and Comparative Review, The Knesset legal division- legal research and legislation division, November 25, 2013.