DOCSLIB.ORG

Capital Punishment: Judaism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Capital Punishment: Judaism University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Departmental Papers (Religious Studies) Department of Religious Studies 2009 Capital Punishment: Judaism Natalie B. Dohrmann University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/rs_papers Part of the Criminal Procedure Commons, Jewish Studies Commons, Religion Commons, and the Religion Law Commons Recommended Citation (OVERRIDE) Dohrmann, N.B. (2009). Capital Punishment: Judaism. In C. Helmer, S.L. McKenzie, T.C. Römer, J. Schröter, B.D. Walfish, E. Ziolkowski (Eds.), Ecyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception (pp. 954-957). New York: De Gruyter. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/rs_papers/2 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Capital Punishment: Judaism Abstract The Bible specifies capital punishment for a wide anger of crimes against both God and man. Distinct and paradoxical political realia, however, circumscribe its interpretation and implementation in postbiblical Judaism.Capital jurisdiction is a test case of political autonomy, and in the postbiblical era, full Jewish political autonomy has been limited to the Second Temple era and the State of Israel. In Second Temple Judaism, executions fell primarily under the jurisdiction (or discretion) of the sovereign, such as Alexander Jannaeus or Herod. Any ties understood to have existed between executions and biblical strictures are unclear. Keywords Capital Punishment, Judaism Disciplines Criminal Procedure | Jewish Studies | Religion | Religion Law This book chapter is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/rs_papers/2 953 Capital Punishment 954 own image God made humankind.” The warrant is “earthly city” (Augustine), under two govern- God’s creating human beings in the divine image ments – church and state – (Calvin), in two king- rather than a specific political arrangement, say, doms (Luther), or in the “symphonic” relation of theocracy. The background is also the sixth com- church and state (Orthodox). Recent Christian real- mandment, “You shall not kill” (Exod 20 : 13), even ists continue the insight. Christians cannot escape when interpreted in terms of murder and not kill- the vicissitudes of social and historical life, and the ing. Punishment for idolatry has different warrant ambiguities of history and society mean that in cer- than shedding blood and is not dependent on the tain situations of self defense, preservation and res- state or the sixth commandment. In Matt 15 : 4, Je- toration of civil peace, and the protection of the sus teaches that “whoever speaks evil of father or weak and innocent, justice may require the use of mother must surely die.” Yet there is no specifica- lethal force. The work of justice, including retribu- tion of the means of punishment, and Jesus, even tive justice, can be merciful. Augustine argued that facing crucifixion, never resorts to force. Within the punishment keeps the sinner from further sin and Gospels there is an emphasis on forgiveness, al- endangering their souls, a position that historically though the state’s power of capital punishment is took a fateful turn in the execution of heretics. Yet not denied. Apostle Paul continues the theme. A the idea is that justice must approximate Christian leader holding legitimate authority, indeed author- love, and, further, Christian commitments to for- ity from God, “does not bear the sword in vain! It giveness cannot compromise the demands of jus- is the servant of God to execute wrath on the tice. Mindful of the ambiguity and possible abuse wrongdoer” (Rom 13 : 4). Thus, the Bible contains of political power, in this pattern of thought God various warrants for capital punishment (divine is held sovereign over all things, and there are command, the human as the image of God, the goods which systems of justice must protect. right of a legitimate state, etc.) which assert the se- Divergent biblical warrants on capital punish- riousness of the violation of the sixth command- ment and the dominant strands of thinking inter- ment and the sovereignty of God. sect with different conceptions of the purpose of Besides diversity in the Bible, Christians have punishment. If punishment is to reform the wrong- drawn on different theological and ethical ideas in doer, then capital punishment terminates that pos- order to consider the legitimacy of capital punish- sibility and is morally illicit. Conversely, if punish- ment. Two basic patterns of thinking are dominant, ment is to restrain wickedness, restore peace after East and West. Many understand Jesus’ teaching its violation, punish the sinner, or manifest the presented in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) wrath of God, then capital punishment might be to require the rejection of violence and the demand justified. Each account of punishment is found of pacifism. The argument is twofold: the prohibi- among Christians, and they cohere with the biblical tion in the sixth commandment is absolute and warrants and the theological ethical arguments without exception, and, further, the example of Je- noted. sus’ action is normative for Christian life. The There is no unified Christian position on capital punishment and this fact flows from diversity Christian community is to be a community of peace within the Bible, different conceptions of the rela- emblematic of the reign of God. Menno Simons and tion of the church to historical and socio-political the subsequent Peace Church tradition, for in- realities, and, finally, disputes about the purpose stance, assert that Christians should not take vows of punishment. Despite contrasting judgments, the or bear arms because Jesus did not. Capital punish- impact of the Christian tradition over time has been ment is contrary to the Gospel, and its use among to mitigate excessive expressions of retributive jus- Christian too easily makes the church an agent of tice with the message of mercy and forgiveness. the state. While the state is a legitimate social form, it is not needed among Christians. In recent times Bibliography: ■ Bailey, L. R./J. M. Efird, Capital Punishment: some Orthodox leaders focus on the centrality of What the Bible Says (Nashville, Tenn. 1986). ■ Berkowitz, B. A., Execution and Invention: Death Penalty Discourse in Early Rab- forgiveness as reasons against capital punishment. binic and Christian Cultures (Oxford 2006). ■ Megivern, J. J., Other thinkers have noted that capital punishment The Death Penalty: An Historical and Theological Survey (New is often used against the poor. Christian commit- York 1997). ■ Stassen, G. (ed.), Captial Punishment: A Reader ment to the poor should alert one to abuses of (Cleveland, Ohio 1998). state power. William Schweiker The other dominant line of thinking draws on different biblical, theological, and ethical warrants. II. Judaism From Augustine to Martin Luther and John Calvin The Bible specifies capital punishment for a wide as well as the long-tradition of just war thinking range of crimes against both God and man. Distinct and also Orthodox thinkers many arguments have and paradoxical political realia, however, circum- been made for the right use of lethal force, includ- scribe its interpretation and implementation in ing capital punishment. The crucial claim, vari- postbiblical Judaism. Capital jurisdiction is a test ously conceived, is that Christians exist within the case of political autonomy, and in the postbiblical Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 4 Brought to you by | University of Pennsylvania © Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2012 Authenticated Download Date | 9/6/17 8:21 PM 955 Capital Punishment 956 era, full Jewish political autonomy has been limited imitate the way God himself kills (mSan 4:5; bSan to the Second Temple era and the State of Israel. In 45a, 52b; MekY Neziqin 5). The rabbis interlace the Second Temple Judaism, executions fell primarily discussion of capital punishment with implicit and under the jurisdiction (or discretion) of the sover- explicit explorations of morality, anthropology, eign, such as Alexander Jannaeus or Herod. Any ties theology, epistemology, jurisprudence, and, to a understood to have existed between executions and lesser extent, politics. biblical strictures are unclear. Medieval commentators within the rabbinic tra- Only in the rabbinic period (2nd–5th cents. CE), dition mostly reiterate these traditional positions. when Jews had no capital jurisdiction, do we find Maimonides states: “It is better and more satisfac- extensive treatment of the topic in biblical terms. tory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put The trajectories of the rabbinic discussion are a single innocent man to death” (Sefer ha-Mitswot, twofold: negative commandments 290). However, in con- (1) The rabbis give vivid detail to the schematic trast to the classical rabbis, in the Middle Ages, biblical picture of capital punishment, discussing: some Jewish communities, e.g., in Muslim Spain, which crimes merit death; the composition of the had capital authority and used it, albeit in a spo- court; collection of evidence; interrogation of wit- radic and limited way. Given both the absence of nesses; conduct of judges throughout the trial; the a sanhedrin and the broader talmudic abrogation, precise modes of execution; and even the proper however, execution struck some as illegitimate, and mourning by the family of the executed. According there seem to have been attempts to avoid directly to rabbinic law, a person accused of a capital offense transgressing rabbinic law, for example, executing must be tried before a court of 23 judges (mSan 1:4) the condemned by extrarabbinic modes or out of and accused by two sanctioned witnesses, who in deference to custom (Assaf: no. 28). A tradition tied the course of proving guilt with epistemological to the talmudic discussion of the Noahide laws certainty, must also prove that the accused was builds a conceptual edifice permitting execution on warned of the precise consequences of the crime less stringent evidentiary standards so as to serve and had acknowledged the warning prior to the the demands of ruling a community.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Religious Studies 300 Second Temple Judaism Fall Term 2020
    Religious Studies 300 Second Temple Judaism Fall Term 2020 (3 credits; MW 10:05-11:25; Oegema; Zoom & Recorded) Instructor: Prof. Dr. Gerbern S. Oegema Faculty of Religious Studies McGill University 3520 University Street Office hours: by appointment Tel. 398-4126 Fax 398-6665 Email: [email protected] Prerequisite: This course presupposes some basic knowledge typically but not exclusively acquired in any of the introductory courses in Hebrew Bible (The Religion of Ancient Israel; Literature of Ancient Israel 1 or 2; The Bible and Western Culture), New Testament (Jesus of Nazareth, New Testament Studies 1 or 2) or Rabbinic Judaism. Contents: The course is meant for undergraduates, who want to learn more about the history of Ancient Judaism, which roughly dates from 300 BCE to 200 CE. In this period, which is characterized by a growing Greek and Roman influence on the Jewish culture in Palestine and in the Diaspora, the canon of the Hebrew Bible came to a close, the Biblical books were translated into Greek, the Jewish people lost their national independence, and, most important, two new religions came into being: Early Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism. In the course, which is divided into three modules of each four weeks, we will learn more about the main historical events and the political parties (Hasmonaeans, Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, etc.), the religious and philosophical concepts of the period (Torah, Ethics, Freedom, Political Ideals, Messianic Kingdom, Afterlife, etc.), and the various Torah interpretations of the time. A basic knowledge of this period is therefore essential for a deeper understanding of the formation of the two new religions, Early Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, and for a better understanding of the growing importance, history and Biblical interpretation have had for Ancient Judaism.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Liberty and the Common Good - the Balance: Prayer, Capital Punishment, Abortion
    The Catholic Lawyer Volume 20 Number 3 Volume 20, Summer 1974, Number 3 Article 5 Individual Liberty and the Common Good - The Balance: Prayer, Capital Punishment, Abortion Brendan F. Brown Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/tcl Part of the Constitutional Law Commons This Pax Romana Congress Papers is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Catholic Lawyer by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND THE COMMON GOOD-THE BALANCE: PRAYER, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, ABORTION BRENDAN F. BROWN* In striking the balance between individual freedom and the common good of society, judges are relying "on ideology or policy preference more than on legislative intent."' Professor Jude P. Dougherty, President-elect of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, has declared that "this is particulary apparent in actions of the United States Supreme Court where the envisaged effects of a decision are often given more weight than the intentions of the framers of the Constitution or of the legislators who passed the law under consideration."' The dominant trend of the United States judiciary is to begin its reasoning with "liberty" or "free- dom" as the ultimate moral value in the Franco-American sense of maxi- mum individual self-assertion, and then to maximize it. It will be the purpose of this paper to show that "liberty" or "freedom" is only an instrumental moral value, and that by treating it otherwise, the courts are damaging the common good of society.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Maryland's Capital Punishment Procedure Constitutes Cruel and Unusual Punishment Matthew E
    University of Baltimore Law Review Volume 37 Article 6 Issue 1 Fall 2007 2007 Comments: The rC ime, the Case, the Killer Cocktail: Why Maryland's Capital Punishment Procedure Constitutes Cruel and Unusual Punishment Matthew E. Feinberg University of Baltimore School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Feinberg, Matthew E. (2007) "Comments: The rC ime, the Case, the Killer Cocktail: Why Maryland's Capital Punishment Procedure Constitutes Cruel and Unusual Punishment," University of Baltimore Law Review: Vol. 37: Iss. 1, Article 6. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol37/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Review by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CRIME, THE CASE, THE KILLER COCKTAIL: WHY MARYLAND'S CAPITAL PUNISHMENT PROCEDURE CONSTITUTES CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT I. INTRODUCTION "[D]eath is different ...." I It is this principle that establishes the death penalty as one of the most controversial topics in legal history, even when implemented only for the most heinous criminal acts. 2 In fact, "[n]o aspect of modern penal law is subjected to more efforts to influence public attitudes or to more intense litigation than the death penalty.,,3 Over its long history, capital punishment has changed in many ways as a result of this litigation and continues to spark controversy at the very mention of its existence.
    [Show full text]
  • The Culture of Capital Punishment in Japan David T
    MIGRATION,PALGRAVE ADVANCES IN CRIMINOLOGY DIASPORASAND CRIMINAL AND JUSTICE CITIZENSHIP IN ASIA The Culture of Capital Punishment in Japan David T. Johnson Palgrave Advances in Criminology and Criminal Justice in Asia Series Editors Bill Hebenton Criminology & Criminal Justice University of Manchester Manchester, UK Susyan Jou School of Criminology National Taipei University Taipei, Taiwan Lennon Y.C. Chang School of Social Sciences Monash University Melbourne, Australia This bold and innovative series provides a much needed intellectual space for global scholars to showcase criminological scholarship in and on Asia. Refecting upon the broad variety of methodological traditions in Asia, the series aims to create a greater multi-directional, cross-national under- standing between Eastern and Western scholars and enhance the feld of comparative criminology. The series welcomes contributions across all aspects of criminology and criminal justice as well as interdisciplinary studies in sociology, law, crime science and psychology, which cover the wider Asia region including China, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Korea, Macao, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14719 David T. Johnson The Culture of Capital Punishment in Japan David T. Johnson University of Hawaii at Mānoa Honolulu, HI, USA Palgrave Advances in Criminology and Criminal Justice in Asia ISBN 978-3-030-32085-0 ISBN 978-3-030-32086-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32086-7 This title was frst published in Japanese by Iwanami Shinsho, 2019 as “アメリカ人のみた日本 の死刑”. [Amerikajin no Mita Nihon no Shikei] © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • HURST V. FLORIDA
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus HURST v. FLORIDA CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA No. 14–7505. Argued October 13, 2015—Decided January 12, 2016 Under Florida law, the maximum sentence a capital felon may receive on the basis of a conviction alone is life imprisonment. He may be sentenced to death, but only if an additional sentencing proceeding “results in findings by the court that such person shall be punished by death.” Fla. Stat. §775.082(1). In that proceeding, the sentencing judge first conducts an evidentiary hearing before a jury. §921.141(1). Next, the jury, by majority vote, renders an “advisory sentence.” §921.141(2). Notwithstanding that recommendation, the court must independently find and weigh the aggravating and miti- gating circumstances before entering a sentence of life or death. §921.141(3). A Florida jury convicted petitioner Timothy Hurst of first-degree murder for killing a co-worker and recommended the death penalty. The court sentenced Hurst to death, but he was granted a new sen- tencing hearing on appeal. At resentencing, the jury again recom- mended death, and the judge again found the facts necessary to sen- tence Hurst to death.
    [Show full text]
  • Prison Conditions, Capital Punishment, and Deterrence
    Prison Conditions, Capital Punishment, and Deterrence Lawrence Katz, Harvard University and National Bureau of Economic Research, Steven D. Levitt, University of Chicago and American Bar Foundation, and Ellen Shustorovich, City University of New York Previous research has attempted to identify a deterrent effect of capital punishment. We argue that the quality of life in prison is likely to have a greater impact on criminal behavior than the death penalty. Using state-level panel data covering the period 1950±90, we demonstrate that the death rate among prisoners (the best available proxy for prison conditions) is negatively correlated with crime rates, consistent with deterrence. This finding is shown to be quite robust. In contrast, there is little systematic evidence that the execution rate influences crime rates in this time period. 1. Introduction For more than two decades the deterrent effect of capital punishment has been the subject of spirited academic debate. Following Ehrlich (1975), a number of studies have found evidence supporting a deterrent effect of the death penalty (Cloninger, 1977; Deadman and Pyle, 1989; Ehrlich, 1977; Ehrlich and Liu, 1999; Layson, 1985; Mocan and Gittings, 2001). A far larger set of studies have failed to ®nd deterrent effects of capital punishment (e.g., Avio, 1979, 1988; Bailey, 1982; Cheatwood, 1993; Forst, Filatov, and Klein, 1978; Grogger, 1990; Leamer, 1983; Passell and Taylor, 1977).1 Although only one small piece of the broader literature on the issue of We would like to thank Austan Goolsbee for comments and criticisms. The National Science Foundation provided ®nancial support. Send correspondence to: Steven Levitt, Department of Economics, University of Chicago, 1126 E.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Study of the Apocalyptic Kingdom of God in Second Temple Jewish Literature and the Teachings of Jesus in Matthew
    LIBERTY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE APOCALYPTIC KINGDOM OF GOD IN SECOND TEMPLE JEWISH LITERATURE AND THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS IN MATTHEW A THESIS SUBMITTED TO DR. C. FRED SMITH IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COURSE THESIS DEFENSE THEO 690 BY JEREMIAH STALLMAN MAY 8, 2013 ii THESIS APPROVAL SHEET _____________ GRADE ____________________________________________ THESIS CHAIR- DR. C. FRED SMITH ____________________________________________ READER- DR. GAYLEN LEVERETT iii ABSTRACT A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE APOCALYPTIC KINGDOM OF GOD IN SECOND TEMPLE JEWISH LITERATURE AND THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS IN MATTHEW Jeremiah Stallman Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, 2013 Chair: C. Fred Smith The apocalyptic kingdom of God is a common theme in Second Temple Jewish literature. This kingdom is often presented differently in the various literary works of this era. This first chapter of this thesis considers the various aspects of the kingdom in relation to God’s coming judgment and the coming messiah who is often seen as the one bringing judgment and setting up the kingdom of God. The second chapter elaborates upon Jesus’ teachings about the apocalyptic kingdom of God and compares and contrasts them with the teachings of the kingdom in His day as understood through the Second Temple Jewish literature. Abstract Length: 102 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER ONE: THE KINGDOM OF
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Punishment - Wikipedia 17.08.17, 1130 Capital Punishment from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Capital punishment - Wikipedia 17.08.17, 1130 Capital punishment From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a government sanctioned practice whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime. The sentence that someone be punished in such a manner is referred to as a death sentence, whereas the act of carrying out the sentence is known as an execution. Crimes that are punishable by death are known as capital crimes or capital offences, and they commonly include offences such as murder, treason, espionage, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Etymologically, the term capital (lit. "of the head", derived via the Latin capitalis from caput, "head") in this context alluded to execution by beheading.[1] Fifty-six countries retain capital punishment, 103 countries have completely abolished it de jure for all crimes, six have abolished it for ordinary crimes (while maintaining it for special circumstances such as war crimes), and 30 are abolitionist in practice.[2] Capital punishment is a matter of active controversy in various countries and states, and positions can vary within a single political ideology or cultural region. In the European Union, Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union prohibits the use of capital punishment.[3] Also, the Council of Europe, which has 47 member states, prohibits the use of the death penalty by its members. The United Nations General Assembly has adopted, in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014,[4] non-binding
    [Show full text]
  • Last State to Use Death Penalty
    Last State To Use Death Penalty HarryIsolable remains and eastwardly feastful and Bear Hispanic. never jollifies Zestful considering and post-obit when Esau Murdock disembowel face-lift her his adscripts colt. Fallen orchestrates Thurston orframe-up incages very out-of-hand. conceptually while History whose Capital Punishment in California Capital Punishment. Many prominent organizations and restore capital punishment quietly amending its protocol was permitted execution because that capital punishment from accepted his bicycle. Garrett argues, why now? But said last meal for death penalty today have access to uses a class. Arrangements will promptly comply with state. Capital Punishment The end of the recent penalty. Barr said in several of violent criminals most cases to state use death penalty, it take so much discretion of state currently administered equitably to death sentence for. Conviction and use? Florida state death penalty states. Not be executed by staff and are added or depraved manner designed to anchors on their last state to death penalty? Rescuers evacuate residents from their flooded homes in Bekasi on Feb. Supplementary Information in Federal Register documents. Statistical Brief Presents statistics on persons under sentence of death four year-end 2016. Federal executions have been exceedingly rare until recent decades. And that settle that rare are its more relate to convince a focus that mitigating factors justify a picture other hand death. The Department would then either distinct to hope its convenient system known an execution by that manner more than lethal injection or pay box the use over State however local facilities and gamble to beat the execution.
    [Show full text]
  • A Systematic Examination of the Rituals and Rights of the Last Meal
    Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law School Digital Commons Faculty Publications Faculty 2014 Cold Comfort Food: A Systematic Examination of the Rituals and Rights of the Last Meal Sarah Gerwig-Moore Mercer University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/fac_pubs Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Sarah L. Gerwig-Moore, et al., Cold Comfort Food: A Systematic Examination of the Rituals and Rights of the Last Meal, 2 Brit. J. Am. Legal Stud. 411 (2014). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty at Mercer Law School Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Mercer Law School Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COLD (COMFORT?) FOOD: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LAST MEAL RITUALS IN THE UNITED STATES SARAH L. GERWIG-MOORE1 Merceer University School of Law ANDREW DAVIES2 State University of New York at Albany SABRINA ATKINS3 Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz P. C ABSTRACT Last meals are a resilient ritual accompanying executions in the United States. Yet states vary considerably in the ways they administer last meals. This paper ex- plores the recent decision in Texas to abolish the tradition altogether. It seeks to understand, through consultation of historical and contemporary sources, what the ritual signifies. We then go on to analyze execution procedures in all 35 of the states that allowed executions in 2010, and show that last meal allowances are paradoxically at their most expansive in states traditionally associated with high rates of capital punishment (Texas now being the exception to that rule.) We con- clude with a discussion of the implications of last meal policies, their connections to state cultures, and the role that the last meal ritual continues to play in contem- porary execution procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • Hurst V. Florida, 136 S
    Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC12-1947 ____________ TIMOTHY LEE HURST, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [October 14, 2016] PER CURIAM. This case comes before the Court on remand from the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) (Hurst v. Florida), following its certiorari review and reversal of our decision in Hurst v. State, 147 So. 3d 435 (Fla. 2014) (Hurst v. State). In that case, we affirmed Timothy Lee Hurst’s death sentence, which was imposed after a second penalty phase sentencing proceeding. We held there, consistent with longstanding precedent, that Florida’s capital sentencing scheme was not violative of the Sixth Amendment or the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). See Hurst v. State, 147 So. 3d at 445-46. We concluded that section 921.141, Florida Statutes (2012), the capital sentencing statute under which Hurst was sentenced to death, was not unconstitutional for failing to require the jury to expressly find the facts on which the death sentence was imposed in this case. Id. at 446. After Hurst sought certiorari review in the United States Supreme Court, that Court granted review in Hurst v. Florida, 135 S. Ct. 1531 (2015), and agreed to entertain the following question: Whether Florida’s death sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment or the Eighth Amendment in light of this Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). Id. at 1531. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed our decision in Hurst v.
    [Show full text]
  • Judaism: a Supplemental Resource for Grade 12 World of Religions: A
    Change and Evolution Stages in the Development of Judaism: A Historical Perspective As the timeline chart presented earlier demonstrates, the development of the Jewish faith and tradition which occurred over thousands of years was affected by a number of developments and events that took place over that period. As with other faiths, the scriptures or oral historical records of the development of the religion may not be supported by the contemporary archaeological, historical, or scientific theories and available data or artifacts. The historical development of the Jewish religion and beliefs is subject to debate between archeologists, historians, and biblical scholars. Scholars have developed ideas and theories about the development of Jewish history and religion. The reason for this diversity of opinion and perspectives is rooted in the lack of historical materials, and the illusive nature, ambiguity, and ambivalence of the relevant data. Generally, there is limited information about Jewish history before the time of King David (1010–970 BCE) and almost no reliable biblical evidence regarding what religious beliefs and behaviour were before those reflected in the Torah. As the Torah was only finalized in the early Persian period (late 6th–5th centuries BCE), the evidence of the Torah is most relevant to early Second Temple Judaism. As well, the Judaism reflected in the Torah would seem to be generally similar to that later practiced by the Sadducees and Samaritans. By drawing on archeological information and the analysis of Jewish Scriptures, scholars have developed theories about the origins and development of Judaism. Over time, there have been many different views regarding the key periods of the development of Judaism.
    [Show full text]