Eradicating the evil from within

From the one time in Re’eh to the three times in Shoftim to the five times in Ki Tetze, the Torah tells us nine times to eradicate evil – “Uvi’arta hara” – from either amongst you, or amongst all of Israel.

It would seem that in most of these cases, as well as others in our parsha, the Torah is advocating for a death penalty kind of punishment for those who are either guilty of a crime, or are in violation of a mitzvah.

Most people I know would have much less of a problem with capital punishment for truly evil people, such as murderers and terrorists. This is likely true in times of peace, but is even more true during times of war.

But for sinners?

We are all sinners!

Why would we advocate for these death penalty punishments, or any kind of corporal punishment, when the laws that trigger these punishments are so easily violated? I have seen sharia law advocates explain that the law is meant to be a deterrent, and that the message of “they will hear and they will fear” will serve as the inspiration to create a moral society as we weed out the bad apples among us.

The problem is that the court system always required witnesses and warnings. And if the warning was not issued in the proper fashion (let alone if it was not issued at all), or if the witnesses did not fit the necessary criteria or were somehow disqualified (assuming there were witnesses — how often are there no witnesses to a crime?), the court case is more of a spectacle than an effective system of punishment.

Understanding to which crimes and sins specific punishments were appended requires a careful reading of Devarim chapters 17-24. But all of the cases in question come with Talmudic caveats. The rebellious son never existed. The betrothed daughter at that specific age was never unfaithful. Warnings. Witnesses.

How then is a just society created if the court system has its hands bound and can’t carry out the law?

Two elements come into play in a society living under G-d.

Firstly, monetary cases are decided by the courts. Documents always had to have witnesses. Legal jargon may not have been what it is today, but the paperwork was there. And courts could decide between he said / he said cases, even in the absence of witnesses.