John Allen Muhammad, known as the D.C. Sniper, will be executed tonight in Virginia. Muhammad, along with his protégé Lee Boyd Malvo, murdered 10 and terrorized millions for weeks, until he was captured in the fall of 2004. And when he dies tonight, there will likely be those outside the prison cheering the fact that “he’s getting what he deserves” and an equal number of people protesting his “murder” by the state.
Are either of them right? Is there a Jewish approach to the death penalty? The short answers are, respectively, no and yes.
From a Jewish perspective, those who cheer the justice that Mr. Muhammad will receive through the tip of a needle are potentially correct about this being what he deserves. They are however almost certainly wrong that he should get it. Jewish tradition is not shy about declaring that many transgressions are deserving of the death penalty, but is equally powerful in its stance against its being carried out.
Despite the Hebrew Bible’s teaching that many acts (and I mention these, in this context, as examples for historical purposes only) ranging from murder to witchcraft, and adultery to homosexuality, merit death at the hands of the court, there is only one case of a person being executed in the entire Five Books of Moses. The rabbis of the Mishnah (Makkot 1:10) teach that a court which executes even once in seven years is a “terrorist court”, and according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah, the number is once in seventy years.
Even more interestingly, the rabbis teach in the tractate Sanhedrin, that a unanimous court can not impose the death penalty. That’s right, the only court which is absolutely prohibited from carrying out a death sentence is the one which most of us assume is the one which should i.e. one in which all judges agree that it’s the right thing to do.
The rabbis accept that there may be times when it has to happen, but can not accept that any decision so momentous and complex should be seen the same way by everybody. If that happens, the rabbis tell us, we must be missing something and therefore can not execute the offender. Moreover, the system described by the rabbis makes it impossible to hide behind popular opinion.
The judges who vote for execution stand alongside those who vote against it and, because they will continue to work together, must acknowledge that among those they respect are people who think that they were dead wrong about the conclusion which they reached. Can the same be said about either group which will be outside the prison tonight?
Will either group admit the partial truth, or potential truth, embedded in the ideas of the group they oppose? If not, we are likely to continue ping-pong’ing along as a nation divided between two opposing groups, neither of whom can address the real issues of justice and compassion and how a legal system must hold those values in relationship.
Overwhelmingly, Jewish tradition seems to value the idea of the death penalty as a moral statement, even as it resists its imposition on ethical grounds. While that might not be the position we should adopt as a nation, it’s surely an interesting basis upon which to talk about what will happen to John Muhammad at nine tonight.
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of 
posted November 10, 2009 at 10:09 am
A murderer supports the death penalty.
posted November 10, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Yes, Muhammad should die. He is an Islamic terrorist.
posted November 10, 2009 at 3:34 pm
As a member of a community terrorized by the shooter (several people shot dead) the feeling is bittersweet; we’d rather have our neighbors and loved ones back than put their killers to death. Yet because of his demonstrated power to corrupt others to commit murder, it appears to me that executing John Mohammed is the right thing to do. Life in prison would not suffice to ensure the safety of the community.
Also, I thought that the maxim that if a sanhedrin had to kill once in seven years applied to criticism of the rabbis themselves for failing to instill the necessary values in the community. The influence rabbis have upon goyim is comparatively limited so they should not be held to quite so strict a standard of accountability.
posted November 10, 2009 at 3:52 pm
The issue of the death penalty is so complex and elicits so many conflicting emotions, that it becomes impossible to label it as “right” or “wrong.” There are people who deserve to die for the horrible crimes they have committed, no doubt. On the other hand, innocent men have been excecuted, which is unacceptable, and I often wonder what the act of carrying out an execution does to those who are charged with the responsibility. I am not sure what the answer is or what I really think. My emotional response to the death of a mass muderer is always satisfaction that, “He got what he deserved.” Other times I wonder how we can be justified in the state killing of a human being when so many times, the wrong person has been convicted and what that knowlege would do to the executioner. It is difficult.
posted November 10, 2009 at 5:35 pm
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. (Old Bible teaching). The new and everlasting covenant is to forgive, same teacher with a different message to try to end all the hate, bigotry, envy, greed, that is taking place in the world today, our news media is sickening, it is so anti Muslim, in Europe in the 30’s and 40’s it was anti Jewish what next! Nuclear holocaust!!!!
posted November 10, 2009 at 5:50 pm
In the late 40s the media was anti-KKK. The producers of the Superman radio show had a series, “Superman vs. the KKK” which (thanks to an informer) exposed all the little secrets of the organization. The power of secrecy was gone. Kids were running around playing “Superman and KKK”. Fathers were worried that their own robes might be discovered. Membership dropped off precipitously, and doubtless others were discouraged from joining.
I’m not saying that our media is anti-Muslim, but if it became anti-killer Muslim, would that really be a bad thing?
posted November 10, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Ron, that particular verse refers to monetary compensation – “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” is an expression not meant to be taken literally and the Oral Torah explains this. Jewish law prohibits vengeful acts such as those prescribed in the Code of Hammurabbi, for example. Additionally, what if the man who destroyed another man’s eye is blind? The punishment would be inapplicable, and punishments must be universally applicable to be effective.
That being said, I appreciate the Rabbi’s explanation of the death penalty in Jewish tradition. This makes greater my understanding of a difficult topic.
posted November 11, 2009 at 10:00 am
May God Have Mercy on John Muhammad’s soul.
posted November 11, 2009 at 11:28 am
I am glad we have separation of church and state in the U. S.
posted November 11, 2009 at 11:48 am
The question was: Should DC Sniper, John Muhammad, Die?
Well, I am not God, so it is not up to me to decide. I believe the Law of the Land should be upheld, and in the case where several punishments are available, I support the one chosen by the body of Judges and jurors. In this case, they decided on Death and so I support their decision as the official jury and judge, had they decided life imprisonment, I would have supported that. Sorry to say this isn’t a perfect world and all judgements are right and perfect, but this is probably the best system yet in a very imperfect world.
The general debate of the moralitiy of the death penalty is probably unsolvable especially since both sides quote different passages of the same holy books to strengthen their case. If the holy books can’t solve the problem, then I guess we just have to stick to the law of the land and do the best we can.
posted November 11, 2009 at 11:57 am
The law of the land prevails. He is a murderer who just happens to be a Muslim. One does not override the other. They exist side by side with that darn free will to exercise however he was wont to do. He chose the violent path and must pay for it. As one commenter reminded us, we have separation of church and state in this country, and our laws are based on that fact.
posted November 11, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I believe that once a person is convicted of taking another’s life, he/she should pay the ultimate price. We store these people at much cost to the community, the money can be better spent in combating/prevention of crimes against the innocent.
posted November 11, 2009 at 1:52 pm
John Mohammed was not properly understood or treated throughout his life. He was extraordinarily
mistreated and even tortured as an innocent child. We took none of this into account.
His service in the military only added to his mental illness. We cannot act like all wise supreme
court judges in his case.
posted November 11, 2009 at 3:45 pm
To murder someone in the name of the State is not an act of compassion. It is the opposite: indifference. It makes sense to protect society by a life sentence with out parole, but to murder a person is vengence that shows not respect for human life, a poor role model. The conservatives should remember that it costs more to execute a person because of legal appeals than it does to keep them alive.
posted November 11, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Does anyone else find it interesting that John Allen Muhammad was declared dead at 9:11pm? The “coincidence” or synchronicity of that number hit me square between the eyes.
posted November 11, 2009 at 4:37 pm
If there was ever a case for capital punishment it was his. To “execute” people for the thrill day in and day out. His victims were mothers and fathers, husbands and wifes, sons and daughters who did nothing but fill up at a gas station or walk in a park. I retired after 28 years in law enforcement and handled cases where boyfriends killed the girlfriends, husband killed wifes and a man killed his child and many more….All of those terrible murders that I handled were sad and a waste but other than the childs case they were crimes “of Passion” or drugs. The people who did those crimes paid with prision and some died in prison but I man like this guy does not deserve prison or rehab. He killed because he liked it.
We sometimes have to decide what is best to protect our children and our family and sad as it is to not us that put him to death…..he did..I dont judge him, thats up to god but we now longer have to fear him…maybe others but no him…
posted November 11, 2009 at 5:12 pm
okay stupid page, let see if it will work this time.. and i did lose all my information on what I had Type.. THANKS..
I am not for the Death Penalty never have been, I dont think it is right for out country to even think about bringing back such a horrible crime and means of torture. Let the person Rott forever in jail this way it lets them think about the crime they have committed. And they can spend their miserible life in jail, although my belief is that no matter what the crime is that a person has done it not bad enough to take a person’s life. Granted i do understand the many levels of a crime, but let them rott in jail and make their inmates lives worse or be punish by their inmates. I think the country should forbid the Dealth Penaly Forever and not for while and then bring it back, or only in some states allowed, which is not right. The Death Penalty Should Be BANNED From all 50 states for once and for all!
posted November 11, 2009 at 7:05 pm
He should be dead and he is.
posted November 11, 2009 at 7:26 pm
It should be noted that the dead do not kill again.
Gavriella
posted November 12, 2009 at 1:45 pm
So then, what does this mean, “You shall live by them, but you shall not die because of them.” (Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 85b)
posted January 21, 2010 at 10:08 am
Sometimes an example needs to be set, so that others fear the government, thus refraining from letting lose on innocent bystanders. Let me not judge him, The deeds of his hands will be weighed by the Omnipotent Judge. We must obey the Law of the Land, to avoid persecution. But is it not Natural Law?