THOU SHALT NOT EXECUTE

This article discusses the historical developments in the approach of Hebrew law to capital punishment. It presents the biblical principles and modes of capital punishment, and discusses subsequent reforms and innovations of the Talmudic and post- Talmudic scholars. The sanctity and invaluableness of life, so fundamental to Hebrew law, did not allow for the substitution of any other type of punishment for death. Reluctance to impose death penalties was expressed in various procedural and substantive legal requirements for conviction in capital cases, requirements that rendered the imposition of the death penalty virtually impossible. The few exceptions to this practice were noted and the relevance of Hebrew law to secular law in contemporary society is discussed.     

THE EFFECT OF VICTIM PARTICIPATION IN SENTENCING ON SENTENCE OUTCOME *

The role of victims in the criminal justice process has been a neglected area of research. In the past two decades, however, victims of crime have received increased attention, and recently this attention has centered on the involvement of victims in sentencing. This paper addresses the concerns of critics of the involvement of victims in sentencing and assesses the impact of victim participation on sentence outcome using felony crimes in one midwestern county. Analysis reveals that filing a victim impact statement has some effect on sentence outcome (probation versus incarceration), although offense and offender characteristics are of primary importance. Victim requests for a particular sentence do not influence the choice of sentence. Legal considerations largely explain length of imprisonment, although several of the victim-related variables have explanatory power. The implications of these results for the debate concerning victim participation are discussed.     

RANDOM ASSIGNMENT,THE LEAST FAIR OF THEM ALL: PRISONERS’ATTITUDES TOWARD VARIOUS CRITERIA OF SELECTION*

This study examines perceptions of fairness and attitudes of offenders toward random assignment as compared to other selection methods used in evaluation research for allocating benefits or assigning inmates to programs. Three hundred and forty-eight inmates in three federal institutions were randomly selected and presented questionnaires which surveyed their attitudes toward four selection procedures: random assignment; need; merit; and first come, first served. By a large margin, selection according to need was chosen most frequently as the fairest method, followed in order by merit; first come, first served; and random assignment. In addition, all groups who did not choose random assignment as the fairest selection method consistently rated it as the least fair of the four. The results and analysis suggest that researchers who wish to test innovative programs using randomized experiments need to in form the participants of the meaning and value of randomization.