The Death Penalty as a Policy Failure Wrapped in Revenge
- Sawsan Masarwa
- 24 hours ago
- 4 min read
It is hard to put into words the feeling that rises in me each time the regime’s push for the death penalty comes up for another round. Perhaps the most accurate description is: “my entire being recoils.” But the truth is that this recoil has become almost routine in the face of the current governmental monstrosity, reflected in its treatment of anyone who does not resemble its leaders. Sawsan Masarwa begins, at the very least, to give words to this terrible feeling. Do we truly want to be a society that employs the death penalty as a legitimate form of punishment? And if so, what does that say about us?
Ayala Shalev, Editor, That’s About Us
The Death Penalty as a Policy Failure Wrapped in Revenge
Sawsan Masarwa
Some laws are born of coherent strategic thinking; others are born of a surge of emotion. The death penalty for terrorism offenses is presented to the public as a deterrent tool – yet empirical and historical examination casts serious doubt on whether it truly serves that function. More than it offers a solution, it signals political despair.
The Myth of Deterrence
The central question is not emotional but factual: Does the death penalty deter terrorism? Research literature indicates that there is no convincing empirical evidence that the death penalty deters more effectively than life imprisonment. A comprehensive 2012 report by the National Research Council in the United States concluded that studies examining the link between capital punishment and deterrence “do not provide reliable evidence” of a unique deterrent effect.
Amnesty International likewise consistently notes that it has not been proven that the death penalty deters more effectively than alternative punishments.
In the context of terrorism, the situation is even more complex. Terrorism research emphasizes that acts of terror are often not the result of ordinary cost-benefit criminal calculations, but rather political, ideological, and sometimes sacrificial actions. Scholars such as Robert Pape have shown that in suicide attacks, death itself is not a deterrent factor; it is part of the mechanism of meaning that underlies the act.
When a state establishes death as its official response, it may not disrupt that mechanism – instead, it may become part of it.
A Symbolic Move More Than a Security Measure
Israel already has a legal framework permitting the death penalty in extremely exceptional cases (such as under the 1950 Nazis and Nazi Collaborators Punishment Law), yet it has been carried out only once, in the trial of Adolf Eichmann. The state’s longstanding avoidance of executions is not incidental; it reflects moral, legal, and international caution.
Expanding the use of the death penalty to terrorism offenses is not merely a technical adjustment in sentencing. It represents a shift in consciousness: from a presumption of careful legal control to a public declaration that death is a legitimate policy tool.
International law does not categorically prohibit the death penalty, but it restricts it to “the most serious crimes” and requires the strictest standards of due process. Many countries around the world have abolished the death penalty entirely or no longer implement it in practice, and this is an enduring global trend over recent decades. Legislation in the opposite direction is not merely an internal matter; it is also a statement of value positioning on the international stage.
Legal Violence and the Social Message
Beyond the question of effectiveness lies a deeper public dimension. Law is not only a punitive instrument; it is an educational message. When a state chooses to execute, it is effectively declaring that death is a legitimate solution to political conflict.
In a reality of ongoing conflict, mutual distrust, and a blocked political horizon, that message is not neutral. It may be perceived as evidence that the political system has abandoned complex solutions in favor of forceful resolution.
Historically, the death penalty has often served as a tool of sovereignty seeking to display strength. But strength is not synonymous with security. Security policy is measured by its ability to reduce violence over time—not by the intensity of its symbolism.
Political Despair Disguised as Resolve
When there is no political process, no civic horizon, and no genuine discourse about addressing the roots of conflict, it is easier to intensify punishment than to confront underlying causes. Such escalation may provide a wounded and grieving public with a sense of immediate satisfaction – but a feeling is not a strategy.
Precisely because terrorism harms innocent civilians and demands a clear response, public responsibility requires asking: Will this step reduce future violence, or deepen the cycle of bloodshed? If there is no proven deterrent effect, and if there is a risk of strengthening narratives of sacrifice and struggle, the law may be serving an emotional need more than a security one.
Civic Responsibility
In a democratic space, silence is not empty of meaning. It is part of the discourse. Throughout history, laws touching on the right to life have sparked profound controversy because they cross the line between punishment and the negation of existence itself.
One may support the law or oppose it, but one cannot pretend that it is merely a technical issue. It is a moral crossroads.
If the death penalty has no proven deterrent effect; if the global trend moves toward abolition; and if there is concern that it may intensify rather than diminish violent dynamics – then the debate is not only about security, but about morality, law, and politics.
A strong state is measured not only by its ability to wield power, but by its ability to set limits on that power. And when death is chosen as a policy tool, the real question is not only what will happen to the enemy, but what will happen to the society that chooses to kill.
Sawsan Masarwa – designer, activist, educator, and educational entrepreneur, working at the intersection of design, education, and politics, using the tools of design to pose challenging questions, disrupt conventions, and shape a shared and equitable future.
