GEN111 … beyond any doubt … compassion for others is a Jewish value.  This value comes out of the commandment, “Love your fellow as yourself” Leviticus 19:18, which is a manifestation of the core Jewish belief that each of us is created in the image of God [this verse and Genesis 5:1]. As such, we must preserve not only the life and the health of others, but their dignity as well.  DORFF-RUTTENBERGSOC 141

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN263 From the beginning of the creation of the world, the Holy Blessed One was involved first only with planting, as it is written: “The Lord God planted a garden in Eden” (Genesis 2:8). You, too, when you enter the land, don't begin with anything other than planting, as it is written, “When you enter the Land and plant” (Leviticus 19:23). (Midrash, Vayikra Rabbah 16:3)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN433 Rabbi Samlai taught: The Torah opens with acts of kindness and closes with acts of kindness.  It opens with acts of kindness, as it is written: “The Lord God made leather cloaks for Adam and his wife, and clothed them” [this verse].  It closes with acts of kindness, as it is written: “And he buried him in the valley” Deuteronomy 34:6  Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 14a (By Uzi Weingarten and the Editors) DORFF-RUTTENBERGSOC 5

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN540 Rabbi Akiva taught: “Love your neighbor as yourself” Leviticus 19:18: this is a great principle in the Torah.  Therefore, do not say: “Since I was demeaned [/dishonored], let my fellow be demeaned [/dishonored] as well, since I was cursed let me fellow be cursed as well.”  Rabbi Tanhuma said: If you do this, know Whom you are demeaning, [since] “In the image of God He made him” Genesis Rabbah 24:7, elaborating on Genesis 5:1. (By Uzi Weingarten and the Editors) DORFF-RUTTENBERGSOC 38

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN544 The Jewish Response to Discrimination. I don't think classical Jewish sources ever confronted a problem like the modern issue of discrimination, but that doesn't mean that Jewish values don't inform my own ideal of a just society. That society is one that does not allow for discrimination.  The following midrash from Genesis Rabbah 24 serves as one of the foundations for the idea of kavod ha-beriyot: “Ben Azzai says: ‘This is the record of Adam’s line’ (Genesis 5:1) is the foremost principle in the Torah. R. Akiva says: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ (Leviticus 19:18), this is the greatest principle of the Torah.  You should not say: Because I have been dishonored, let my fellow man be dishonored along with me…R. Tanhuma explained: If you do so, know whom you are dishonoring—‘God make him in the likeness of God’ (Genesis 5:1).” The Rabbis in this midrash do not disagree that humans have an obligation to each other.  What is in question here is why we have that obligation. Is it because we have shared parentage, all descending from Adam and Eve? Is it because we must treat each other as we hope to be treated? Or is it because dishonoring another person dishonors God, as we are all created in God’s image? In this midrash, kavod ha-beriyot, respect for human dignity, becomes the foremost principle of the Torah, meaning that all people have an obligation to treat each other with respect. Neglecting these values enables us to convince ourselves, consciously or unconsciously, that some people are less deserving than others of equal protection under the law and of being treated with common decency.  As Jews, kavod ha-beriyot can’t just be a textual value, left to some rabbis to debate on a forgotten page.  It must be a lived value. I am sure that many of us know the pain of being seen through the lens of a stereotype, and of being told that it would be better if we developed a thicker skin when we get offended by those stereotypes. But I don't think God envisioned human beings creating a world where we cause each other such pain. However, although those of us involved in Jewish social justice work often invoke the principle of tikkun olam, which means repairing or perfecting the world, we don't often say what we hope a better world will look like. For me, it is a given that we must work toward a world like the one envisioned so eloquently in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights--one in which the dignity and equality of every person is recognized. If we each live a life guided by kavod ha-beriyot [respect for God’s creatures—AJL], we will help repair the world. (By Rachel Kahn-Troster) DORFF-RUTTENBERGSOC 60-1

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN961 We are obligated to be more observant of the commandment of charity than of any other positive commandment, for charity is the sign of the righteous of the seed of Abraham, as it is written [this verse].   Mishneh Torah, Laws of Gifts to the Poor 10:1 (By Uzi Weingarten and the Editors) DORFF-RUTTENBERGSOC 6

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN967 Jewish ethics is, of course, not only about avoiding wrongdoing.   Rather, we have a greater mandate to go beyond the ethics of the “do no harm” principle and the responsibility to repair the world from its brokenness.  We are asked to partner with others to help meet our potential for moral leadership.   As a nation, we are commanded to commit to being laasot tzedakah u’mispat—a nation enacting justice.   Setting positive examples that cultivate leadership in our communities is vital to the Jewish moral enterprise and to the creation of a vibrant, just society.   (By Shmuly Yanklowitz) DORFF-RUTTENBERGSOC 19

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD440 ... the practice of capital punishment survives. The frontline in the fight against the death penalty is now focused on whether there is a constitutional manner of execution. We have come to realize that there is no nice way to kill someone. For now, lethal injection is legally acceptable, but even challenges to that practice continue. This leads us back to the basic question: Should the death penalty be abolished? Generally, I would say yes. But I hesitate. I sincerely believe that killing is wrong, and if it is wrong for the defendant, it is also wrong for the state. Yet, I am also honest enough to admit that there could be a case--something so heinous, so barbaric, and so unforgivable--that I would consider making an exception. The only example that comes to mind is that of a homicidal maniac like Adolf Eichmann. His butchery and evil was so colossal that Israel seems to have been justified in imposing the ultimate punishment upon him, the only time in the history of the State that it has done so. I wish I didn't have this exception in mind. I wish I could be the absolutist who says that I could never support the death penalty. I wish the Torah made it much easier on us with an absolute prohibition of, “You shall not murder.” (Exodus 20:13) but it doesn't. Instead, it provides that sometimes capital punishment is warranted. Why does it do this? Perhaps for the very reason that I leave open the possibility of the exception. Playing God isn't all we are doing when we decide whether or not to maintain the death penalty as a punishment in our society. We are also trying to decide how best to preserve human life overall. Exceptions to our opinions on this issue remind us that life and death matters are never easy. The law does not have answers to all of our questions. The important thing is that we keep struggling with this question: what kind of punishment will protect and preserve the overall sanctity of human life? (By Laurie L. Levenson, "Judaism and CriminalJustice".

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD596 Problems in Applying the Death Penalty. It is inaccurate to claim that the death penalty represents the Torah prescription of an “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” and “life for life.” (Exodus 21:23-27). The truth is that the death penalty is imposed in such an arbitrary manner that there is no guarantee that it will be imposed only on those who actually deserve it. Prosecutors have enormous discretion. Defendants who have committed heinous killings may receive reduced sentences because their testimony is needed against co-defendants. However, the two biggest factors at play in deciding who will be subject to the death penalty are geographic location and race. In some large jurisdictions, there are so many killings that a number of those who kill in a manner that would result in the death penalty elsewhere do not end up facing the death penalty. On the other hand, small, rural jurisdictions are notorious for being particularly aggressive in seeking the death penalty. A defendant who robs and kills a convenience store owner may face the death penalty in one town and only a life sentence in another. However, race is the biggest elephant in the room. Although the Supreme Court has refused to strike down the death penalty as discriminatory per se, it has repeatedly recognized that racism pervades the criminal justice system. [There are many ways this racism is evidenced in the criminal justice system. First, there are a disproportionate number of people of color who are criminal defendants. For example, although Black Americans make up only 12.7% of the US population, they make up 48.2% of all adults in prisons and jails. Second, people of color tend to be targeted by law enforcement. Because of racial profiling, Blacks and Hispanics are substantially more likely to be stopped by the police. For more information regarding racism in the criminal justice system, see “Factsheet: How is the Criminal Justice System Racist?” Defending Justice: An Activist Resource Kit, Public Research Associates (2005). Available at http://www.publiceye.org/defendingjustice/pdfs/factsheets/10-Fact%20Sheet%20-%20System%20as%Racist.pdf; note: link inoperative when access attempted on 5/11/2021-AJL] Studies show that a person who kills a white victim is almost four times more likely to receive the death penalty than a person who kills a non-white victim. At least 55% of inmates currently sitting on death row are minorities. [Death Penalty Information Center, “Facts About Death Penalty,” Oct. 15, 2008 Available at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org] More subtle racism also influences the system. Nearly every year, the Supreme Court decides a case in which prosecutors have intentionally sought to dismiss minorities from juries in death penalty cases in attempt to keep away potentially sympathetic jurors. Thus, the death penalty is not applied on an even playing field. If a minority defendant is on trial, the field is tilted toward a capital verdict. The death penalty is also a very expensive proposition. The cost of keeping an inmate incarcerated for life is significantly less than that of prosecuting a capital case through the appellate process. Capital defendants are entitled to two sets of everything--two sets of lawyers, two stages of a trial (the guilty phase and the penalty phase), and two sets of appeals (direct appeals and habeas corpus proceedings). If voters just voted based on their pocketbooks, they would outlaw the death penalty tomorrow. Because of these necessary procedural guarantees, some jurisdictions have tried to contain costs by paying capital defense lawyers rock bottom salaries. For example, in Alabama, a lawyer handling a death penalty case is paid less than $2,000 to investigate and prepare a capital case, including the preparation of a post-conviction appeal. If the lawyer spends a minimum of 500 hours on the capital case, he or she then earns $4 per hour. As they say, “You get what you pay for.” Unfortunately, this means that poor defendants are much more likely to receive the death penalty just because they do not have the resources to defend their case. (By Laurie L. Levenson, "Judaism and CriminalJustice"

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD598 The Goals of Punishment. Classically, the meting out of punishment in American criminal law is based upon four purposes: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Not all of these rationales work in every case, but they are the building blocks of criminal law. A simple example will demonstrate how these purposes of punishment are used in sentencing a defendant to prison. 1. Retribution. Imagine a bank robber is charged with threatening a teller with his gun and taking $500 from a bank. He is apprehended and convicted. Why put him in prison? First, we punish him because he broke the rules. In its simplest sense, retribution is encapsulated in the phrase, “You did the crime, now you must do the time.” In other words, the defendant “deserves” to be punished because he violated society's laws. By punishing the defendant, we reaffirm society’s values. While retribution is a key theory of punishment, there are problems with it, just as there are with the other theories behind punishment. At its essence, it is a theory based on the need for vengeance. Even if the defendant promises not to commit any other offences, and we are confident that he will not, we still punish him because he owes a debt to society. Retribution, as a theory, thus assumes that all of society's laws are fair and that, morally, the defendant deserves to be punished. However, what if the bank robber committed the crime because he needed the money to buy food for his children? Are we confident enough in the fairness of society's laws to claim that the defendant deserves to be punished because of his actions? There are many inequities in our society and we are always at risk of punishing people for violating rules they had no say in creating. Additionally, retribution assumes that the defendant can “pay society back” for his crime by being incarcerated. Sending our bank robber to prison will not reimburse the bank for his crime. Neither will capital punishment bring a murder victim back to life or make the victim's family whole again. The Torah’s insistence on an “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth” and “life for life” (Exodus 21:23-27) is a reminder that punishment should be proportional, but it is folly to believe that punishment will make a victim whole. Finally, there are practical reasons why retribution is problematic. America has been on a crusade to incarcerate criminal offenders. Right now, there are over 2.3 million Americans in prison. [Report of Pew Center on the States (Feb. 28, 2008). Available at http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org]. The United States has less than 5% of the world's population, but almost a quarter of the world's prisons. China, which is four times more populous than the United States, is a distant second, with 1.6 million of its people in prison. The cost of incarcerating America's defendants in the state and federal prisons is more than $60 billion [U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (2005), “Direct expenditure for each of the major criminal justice functions.” available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/exptyp.htm] Even if we believe that it is appropriate to punish every person for his or her misconduct, the reality is that we cannot afford to do so. (By Laurie L. Levenson, "Judaism and CriminalJustice"

SHOW FULL EXCERPT