My colleague Shmuly Yanklowitz in a column in The Jewish Week argued that the Jewish community in campaigning for a punishment other than life in prison, the punishment being asked for by the prosecution, is demonstrating a public display of our wrong priorities. What about the workers arrested in that now infamous raid? Why isn't the Jewish community collecting signatures on their behalf, Shmuly asks. ("One must consider priorities in these cases and the message sent by defending the owner's case...")
I agree with Shmuly that the case of the workers should be addressed and the workers dealt with compassionately. I commend organizations such as The Jewish Council on Urban Affairs for making immigration reform a central piece of their agenda. However, caring about the workers does not by necessity demand ignoring Sholom Rubashkin. In asking for a life sentence the prosecution is clearly interested in utilizing this case as an example to all would-be offenders. I am opposed on moral and religious grounds to the concept of excessively punishing one person to set an example for others. First, it turns a real human being into a means towards an end. Secondly, it ignores the fact that all matters of din (judgement) must be tempered by rahamim (mercy) and a court that exercises only pure din is an unjust court.
For these reasons I have decided to support the campaign to seek a sentence that both reflects the severity of his crimes and is tempered with mercy.
No comments:
Post a Comment