Capital punishment as defined in the Torah/Teaching was performed for the sake of the soul and not as an deterrent to crime. Contemporary criminal systems are deterrent based; it is the fear of punishment which provides the incentive to obey the law of the land.
The laws of Torah are much kinder. There were no jail in Israel; people who stole were fined and those unable to pay must enter into servitude to the victim–those who killed were banished to the cities of refuge. Only those who killed with intent in front of witnesses who had warned the person before the offense occurred were executed.
It is said in the Talmud-Book of Law if more than one person was executed in any 70 year period the courts were considered murderers. There were four types of execution carried out by the rabbis untilizing sword, stone, fire and water–all four had to be carried out after the death occurred without pain.
The Cabala explains how the body and soul share the same geometry drawn from the Four Letter Name of God YHVH; when we commit a crime against God’s law we effect the the clarity of our soul.
.jpg)
"Judge's Clarification Puts Him in More Hot Water: Texas Death Penalty Ruled Unconstitutional" (1)
ReplyDeleteDudley Sharp, contact info below
3/7/10
The judge clarifies that his decision is " . . . limited only to the due process claim that 37.071 (2) has resulted in the execution of innocent people and/or has the potential to result in the execution of innocent persons". (1)
As such potential has existed since the beginning of executions, it is curious that the judge has made this ruling when (1) the probability of such an event occurring is now lower than at any other time in history, (2) the judge cannot point to a case whereby an innocent has been executed in the modern US death penalty era, post Gregg v Georgia, and (3) the judge can cite no precedent wherein perfection is required in the implementation of due process.
I agree with Judge Fine that judges should be gatekeepers. However, his claim that this is a case of "first impression", with no precedent to rely upon, makes him the gatekeeper to Alice in Wonderland's rabbit hole, wherein he welcomes us all. Some of us will refuse, as reality requires.
The judge states: "We execute innocent people. This is supported by the exoneration of individuals off of America's death rows. I repeat, again, that the vast majority of those cases involve DNA evidence."
After, again, not fact checking, the judge has repeated his earlier error, by again using the wrong 200 released number from the Innocence Project(3), which is in reference to cases IN THE ENTIRE PRISON SYSTEM - NOT JUST DEATH ROW - whereby prisoners were released because of DNA exclusion.
The real number is 251 (4), of which 9-10 represent inmates released from death row (5) , or 4% - hardly a vast majority.
In reality, the number of actual innocents released from death row is closer to 25 (6), of which the 9-10 DNA cases make up 40% of those so identified and released, also not a vast majority, and which represents about 0.3% of all those sent to death row, since Furman v Georgia.
Furthermore, evidence of releasing innocents from death row is only evidence of releasing innocents from death row. It is not evidence of executing innocents, for which Judge Fine offers not one case.
Well, predictably, he offers one.
Judge Fine "cites" a case from Travis County, with Judge Charley Baird presiding, whereby " . . . the deceased was in fact innocent and, thereafter, executed by the state of Texas."
This is the case of Tim Cole, who died in prison, innocent of the rape he was found guilt of and imprisoned for. This was not a death penalty case. Besides getting all of the facts wrong, Judge Fine appears to have made the case (for himself) that we can no longer incarcerate people because it denies their due process rights, because of the probability that actual innocents die in prior to due process causing their release.
Is Judge Fine this bad? Well, yes, he is.
I agree with Judge Fine that innocents have been executed, It doesn't seem likely it has occurred in the modern era in the US. The death penalty offers greater protection for innocents than does its claimed alternative, life without parole (7). Given such a reality, possibly Judge Fine's next ruling will be that all incarcerations violate due process, as well. There is, after all, always the potential that an actual innocent incarcerated will die, prior to them being discovered and released by due process.
There may even be the potential for Judge Fine to recognize the importance of both the facts and the law.
contd