The Death Penalty Debate and What I Couldn’t Fit into the Column
A few days ago, Ynet published my Hebrew op-ed on the renewed push for the death penalty in Israel. To my surprise, they also translated it into English and released it on Ynetnews, which means many readers outside Israel were suddenly exposed to a debate that, at first glance, may feel familiar but is unfolding in a uniquely volatile context.
My original column focused on the evidence: the lack of deterrence, the high probability of wrongful convictions in times of political chaos, and the dangerous illusion of control that such legislation offers.
But op-eds have limited space, and several important points didn’t make it into the final version.
In the piece, I argued that capital punishment does not make societies safer — it only makes them more certain that they are doing something, even when that “something” has no empirical support.
What I couldn’t include, which should provide a more complete picture:
1. The death penalty is not cheaper — it’s dramatically more expensive
One common misconception is that executing a convicted murderer saves taxpayers money.
In reality, the opposite is true. Capital cases require far more investigative hours, expert witnesses, forensic work, and years of appeals designed to prevent irreversible mistakes. Studies across multiple U.S. states show that seeking a death sentence costs two to ten times more than keeping a prisoner incarcerated for life.
If the goal is fiscal responsibility, the death penalty is not a solution — it’s an exceptionally costly way to pretend we found one.
2. It also doesn’t deliver emotional closure to victims’ families
Another intuitive argument is that execution brings relief to grieving families. But research and lived experience tell a different story. Death-penalty cases drag on for years, often more than a decade, forcing families to relive their trauma again and again through hearings, appeals, and media cycles. Closure rarely emerges from state-imposed punishment; it emerges from regaining a sense of safety, voice, and stability.
Promising families emotional peace through the death penalty is not compassion — it’s a well-intentioned illusion that often deepens their pain.
If you’d like to read the full original argument — including the research behind deterrence, wrongful convictions, and the psychological dynamics that make such laws politically tempting yet practically ineffective — you can find the English version published by Ynetnews here:
