FEATURE SIDEBAR: The Talmud Confronts Florida’s Electric Chair

c. 2000 Religion News Service UNDATED _ There are many signs of increased interest in Jewish legal studies at American law schools: More than three dozen schools now teach the subject; the American Association of Law School Professors has its own Jewish law section; there is now a Jewish law casebook being used as a […]

c. 2000 Religion News Service

UNDATED _ There are many signs of increased interest in Jewish legal studies at American law schools: More than three dozen schools now teach the subject; the American Association of Law School Professors has its own Jewish law section; there is now a Jewish law casebook being used as a reference tool in courses on the subject.

But the most profound evidence may be found at the highest level of American justice. Last month, a brief was filed before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding Florida’s use of the electric chair and whether it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.


What makes this brief unique is that it does not rely on a single tenet of American law, but rather solely on the Talmud. According to the two lawyers who filed the brief, Nathan Lewin and former Israel Supreme Court Justice Menahem Elon, the Talmud can provide an important means of evaluating the fair implementation of the death penalty.

“What we’re saying is that under Jewish law three principles apply,” Lewin told the Jerusalem Post. “That you should (execute) as painlessly as possible, as quickly as possible, and with the least mutilation of the body as possible. Those all derive from the principles that were in the Talmud 2,000 years ago.” They are consistent, as well, with the Eighth Amendment.

Because the case is being brought on behalf of a death row inmate facing execution in Florida’s electric chair _”Old Sparky,”which has a history of malfunctioning _ the Supreme Court brief filed by Lewin and Elon does not discuss whether capital punishment should be abolished, but simply how it should be administered.

“I would consider it a substantial contribution,” said Lewin, “if in either a majority or concurring or some opinion, the court says, `Look, our conclusion that this is cruel and unusual punishment is buttressed, is informed, is supported by the fact that 2,000 years ago the rabbis in the Talmud said it would be impermissible to actually burn somebody at the stake, because that would be a death that would disfigure and would cause pain over an extended period of time.’ That would engender respect in the world at large for a body of law that we study all the time and believe is divinely inspired and worth our time and attention.”

DEA END NUTT

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!