Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within Their Jurisdiction 14

Hook – The Injustice or Need This Text Names

In an age bristling with the call for swift justice, for accountability that feels immediate and often punitive, we grapple with a primal urge to right wrongs decisively. When harm is done, particularly when lives are shattered or irrevocably altered, there is a natural human cry for recompense, for a clear delineation between right and wrong, and for a system that metes out consequences proportionate to the offense. This impulse, while understandable, carries within it a profound danger: the potential for irreversible error, for rash judgment, and for the systemic dehumanization of those deemed culpable.

Our societies, in their pursuit of order and safety, often flirt with the precipice of retributive justice, where the desire for punishment can overshadow the deeper quest for true equity and restoration. We see this in the eager embrace of "tough on crime" rhetoric, in the haste to condemn, and in the often-unquestioned reliance on systems that, while purporting to deliver justice, frequently perpetuate cycles of marginalization and despair. The need we face, therefore, is not merely to establish a framework for consequences, but to imbue that framework with an abiding sense of caution, humility, and an unshakeable reverence for every human life.

The ancient text before us, a segment of Maimonides' Mishneh Torah dealing with capital punishment, appears at first glance to be a stark, unyielding treatise on the ultimate penalty. It details the forms of execution, the circumstances under which they are applied, and the hierarchy of their severity. To a modern ear, this can sound barbaric, far removed from the compassionate ideals we strive for. Yet, to dismiss it thus would be to miss its profound, almost counter-intuitive, prophetic message. This text, far from being a blueprint for widespread execution, is, in fact, a deeply conservative document. It is a testament to the extraordinary lengths to which a legal system must go to avoid taking a life, to ensure absolute certainty, and to enshrine due process with such rigor that capital punishment becomes an almost theoretical exception, rather than a practical norm.

The injustice it implicitly names, therefore, is the casual, unreflective, or overly zealous application of ultimate power – the power to end a life. It confronts the human tendency towards haste, certainty, and the simplification of complex moral dilemmas into mere transactional penalties. It challenges any system that would treat human lives as expendable, or that would allow the righteous anger of a community to override the painstaking, meticulous, and humbling pursuit of truth and mercy. The deeper need it illuminates is for a justice system characterized by profound patience, rigorous self-scrutiny, and an unwavering commitment to the sanctity of every individual, even those accused of the gravest transgressions. It demands that we confront our own capacity for judgment and, in doing so, recognize the inherent limitations and moral weight of wielding such authority.

The Weight of Judgment

This text forces us to acknowledge the immense gravity of any societal decision that impacts life and liberty. It calls for a paradigm shift from a focus on how to punish to a focus on how to ensure justice is so meticulously applied that punishment becomes a last, almost impossible, resort. The very existence of such severe laws, framed by such extreme caveats, serves as a constant reminder that the power of judgment is not a right to be exercised lightly, but a sacred trust to be guarded with unparalleled diligence and compassion. It’s a call to temper the sword of justice with the scales of infinite care.

Text Snapshot – Prophetic Anchor

The ancient Sages, in their profound wisdom, understood the perilous balance between justice and mercy, particularly when life itself hung in the balance. Maimonides records their voice, echoing through the centuries:

"Whenever a court executes a person once in seven years, it is considered a savage court. Nevertheless, if it happens that they must execute a person every day, they do. They do not, however, judge two cases involving capital punishment on the same day." (Mishneh Torah, Sanhedrin 14:10)

This remarkable passage is a profound counter-narrative to the very topic it discusses. It’s a paradox that holds the key to its prophetic instruction.

Insight 1: The Savage Court

The declaration that a court executing once in seven years is "savage" is not a legal loophole; it's a moral and ethical barrier. It speaks to an almost impossible standard for the application of capital punishment. It implies that a truly just society, one operating with the highest degree of moral integrity and judicial rigor, would find it exceedingly rare to reach the threshold where such a sentence is permissible. It demands an environment where every mitigating factor is explored, every doubt is magnified, and every opportunity for redemption or alternative resolution is exhausted. This isn't just about legal precision; it's about the soul of the community and the moral character of its judges. A court that frequently takes life is one that has either failed in its preventative duties, or, more likely, failed in its compassionate vigilance.

Insight 2: The Necessity of Justice

Yet, the text immediately pivots: "Nevertheless, if it happens that they must execute a person every day, they do." This isn't a contradiction but a tension. It acknowledges that when the stringent conditions are met, when all avenues of doubt and mercy have been meticulously explored and exhausted, and the evidence is so overwhelmingly clear that justice demands this ultimate step, then the court must act. It is a reluctant, grave acknowledgment of responsibility, not an eager embrace of violence. This clause functions as a theoretical anchor, affirming the conceptual necessity of ultimate justice, even while the surrounding conditions make its practical execution almost unattainable. It’s a statement of ultimate judicial integrity, even in the face of the most difficult decisions.

Insight 3: Patience and Deliberation

The final phrase of the snapshot, "They do not, however, judge two cases involving capital punishment on the same day," (further clarified by the Ohr Sameach and Yad David commentaries) underscores the profound patience and deliberation required. This is not mere procedural etiquette; it is a fundamental principle born from the sanctity of life and the inherent fallibility of human judgment. Each case, each life, must be weighed with singular focus, untainted by the prior case's emotional residue or the pressures of efficiency. The Yad David commentary attributes this to a Torah commandment ("and they shall rescue the congregation"), emphasizing the need for ample time to advocate for the accused. This isn't just about avoiding error; it's about ensuring every possible angle for acquittal or mitigation is explored, giving the accused every conceivable opportunity for defense. It's a testament to the idea that justice, particularly in matters of life and death, cannot be rushed or consolidated for convenience. Each human life demands its own, unhurried, agonizing deliberation.

Halakhic Counterweight – One Concrete Legal Anchor

The text is rich with halakhic details, but one stands out as a profound counterweight, reinforcing the prophetic message of caution and the sanctity of life:

The Nullification of Capital Punishment in Exile

"40 years before the destruction of the Temple, capital punishment was nullified among the Jewish people. Although the Temple was still standing, since the Sanhedrin went into exile and were not in their place in the Temple, these laws could not be enforced." (Mishneh Torah, Sanhedrin 14:11)

This is not merely a historical note; it is a foundational legal principle that radically reshapes the practical application of capital punishment within Jewish law. It establishes an extraordinary conditionality: capital punishment is not a universal, always-applicable aspect of Jewish jurisprudence. It is specifically tied to the physical presence of the Temple and the Sanhedrin in its designated sacred space (the Chamber of Hewn Stone).

Deeper Meaning and Implications

This halakhic anchor reveals several critical insights:

1. Sacred Space and Authority: The requirement for the Temple and the Sanhedrin in its proper place suggests that the exercise of ultimate judicial power is not a mundane governmental function. It is a sacred act, requiring a divine presence and the highest spiritual authority. In the absence of this sacred infrastructure, the human capacity for judgment is deemed insufficient to wield the power of life and death. This implies a profound humility regarding human authority. Without the direct connection to the divine, the system acknowledges its own inherent limitations and susceptibility to error, and thus refrains from ultimate judgment.

2. The "Savage Court" Principle in Practice: This nullification, occurring 40 years before the Temple's destruction, suggests a pre-emptive recognition of the changing moral and spiritual landscape. The Sanhedrin, recognizing the decline in the "moral character of the Jewish people" (as the text mentions), understood that the conditions for truly just capital punishment could no longer be met. Rather than risk becoming a "savage court" or making errors under compromised circumstances, they voluntarily abrogated this power. This is a radical act of self-restraint, prioritizing the sanctity of life and the integrity of justice over the literal enforcement of law.

3. Emphasis on Prevention over Punishment: When capital punishment is off the table, the focus of justice shifts. The emphasis naturally moves towards prevention, education, rehabilitation, and alternative forms of accountability. If the ultimate deterrent is removed, a society must invest more deeply in the social and moral fabric that prevents such crimes in the first place, and in systems that address harm without resorting to the finality of execution.

4. A Model for Modern Justice: For us today, living in a world without the Temple, this halakhic anchor is profoundly liberating and instructive. It effectively removes capital punishment from the practical realm of Jewish law, not through abolitionist rhetoric, but through a deeply embedded legal condition. It serves as a powerful argument for extreme caution in any modern justice system considering capital punishment. If even a divinely ordained system, with its Sanhedrin and Temple, recognized its own incapacity to apply such judgments under certain conditions, how much more so should contemporary secular systems, with their acknowledged imperfections and biases, exercise profound restraint? This anchor is a testament to the Jewish legal tradition's deep-seated reverence for life and its institutionalized skepticism about humanity's capacity to perfectly administer ultimate justice. It underscores that true justice, imbued with compassion, often means stepping back from the ultimate penalty, not just for the sake of the accused, but for the moral integrity of the community itself.

Strategy – Two Moves (Local + Sustainable)

The wisdom embedded in Mishneh Torah, Sanhedrin 14, particularly the profound caution and eventual self-nullification of capital punishment, offers a powerful lens through which to approach contemporary justice with both compassion and strategic foresight. The text compels us to shift from a reactive, punitive mindset to a proactive, restorative one, recognizing the immense cost and inherent fallibility of ultimate judgment. Our strategy must, therefore, be twofold: to infuse local justice initiatives with deep humility and rigorous due process, and to foster sustainable community-wide practices that elevate human dignity and prevent the conditions that lead to severe harm.

Move 1: Local – Cultivating Radical Due Process and Compassionate Scrutiny in Local Legal Aid and Advocacy

The text's insistence on painstaking deliberation, its release of the accused when certainty is compromised, and its designation of a "savage court" as one that executes even rarely, all point to a demand for radical due process and compassionate scrutiny in any system wielding power over individuals. Locally, this translates into direct, hands-on engagement with our existing legal and carceral systems, not to replicate ancient capital punishment, but to infuse them with its spirit of profound caution and reverence for life.

Actionable Steps:

1. Establish or Support "Doubt Magnifiers" in Legal Aid

   • What it is: Partner with existing legal aid organizations, public defenders' offices, or community justice centers to fund and support specialized roles or teams dedicated to "doubt magnification." These teams would not just manage caseloads but would be specifically tasked with scrutinizing every detail of a case, actively searching for reasonable doubt, procedural errors, or mitigating circumstances that might be overlooked in the rush of the system. Their mandate would be to exhaust every possible avenue for a more lenient outcome, or for the case to be dismissed due to insufficient certainty.
   • How it works: This could involve funding dedicated paralegals, investigative journalists, or social workers who work alongside defense attorneys, focusing on aspects often neglected due to time or resource constraints: re-interviewing witnesses with a fresh perspective, digging into background checks of prosecution witnesses, analyzing forensic evidence for alternative interpretations, or uncovering systemic biases in data collection. The goal is to embody the spirit of the Mishneh Torah’s requirement that "we complete the judgment of a person only when he is present," meaning judgment must be absolute, unimpeachable, and free of any lingering uncertainty, especially when liberty is at stake.
   • Example: A legal aid clinic might establish a "second look" panel, where experienced pro bono attorneys or retired judges review cases that have already passed initial legal hurdles, specifically looking for new angles for appeal or clemency based on the spirit of extreme judicial caution.
   • Tradeoffs:
     • Resource Intensity: This approach is resource-intensive, requiring significant funding, skilled personnel, and time. Legal aid organizations are often underfunded and stretched thin; adding this layer requires new investment.
     • Potential for Delay: Meticulous scrutiny inherently takes more time, potentially delaying resolution for both the accused and victims. This must be balanced with the need for timely justice, but the text prioritizes thoroughness over speed.
     • Systemic Resistance: Existing legal systems, driven by efficiency metrics and caseload management, may resist the perceived "inefficiency" of such deep dives. Advocacy and education will be crucial.

2. Implement "Pre-Trial Diversion & Restorative Justice Circles" with a "Release if Mixed" Ethos

   • What it is: Develop and expand pre-trial diversion programs that emphasize restorative justice, particularly for non-violent offenses or first-time offenders. Critically, these programs would operate with an ethos inspired by the Mishneh Torah's rule: "Whenever people who are all liable to be executed are mixed together, each one of them is executed in the less severe manner. When a person who has been sentenced to death becomes mixed together with others and it is unable to distinguish him from them... they are all released from liability." This principle, applied to our context, means that where there is any ambiguity about individual culpability, or where the system itself creates confusion or disproportionate impact, the bias must be towards the least severe outcome, ideally diversion and restoration.
   • How it works: For eligible cases, instead of traditional prosecution, individuals are offered the opportunity to participate in restorative justice circles involving victims, community members, and the offender. The focus is on understanding the harm, accountability, and developing a plan for repair and reintegration, rather than solely punishment. The "release if mixed" ethos would mean that if, during the restorative process or pre-trial assessment, it becomes genuinely difficult to distinguish the precise degree of individual culpability, or if systemic factors (poverty, mental health, lack of opportunity) significantly blur the lines of individual agency, the default position should be towards diversion, community support, and minimizing punitive measures. This is not about letting people off the hook, but about recognizing the complexity of human behavior and systemic influence, and opting for the most compassionate, least coercive path when certainty is compromised.
   • Example: A community court could implement a system where, for certain offenses, if a group of individuals committed a crime together, and the specific actions and intent of each individual are not perfectly clear, instead of prosecuting all to the fullest extent, they are all offered a comprehensive restorative justice program with community service, therapy, and skill-building, effectively applying the "less severe manner" or "release from liability" principle in a modern context.
   • Tradeoffs:
     • Victim Buy-in: Restorative justice requires significant buy-in from victims, who may prefer traditional punitive measures. Careful facilitation and victim support are essential.
     • Perception of Leniency: Some members of the public or law enforcement may perceive this approach as "soft on crime" or undermining accountability, necessitating robust public education and transparent outcome reporting.
     • Scope Limitations: Restorative justice is not suitable for all crimes, particularly those involving severe violence where a victim's safety or desire for non-engagement must be paramount. Its application must be carefully calibrated to appropriate contexts.

Move 2: Sustainable – Fostering a Culture of Patience, Deliberation, and Dignity in Community Building and Policy Advocacy

The Mishneh Torah's text, with its deep-seated skepticism about the human capacity for ultimate judgment and its emphasis on an almost impossible standard for taking life, calls us to build a sustainable culture that inherently minimizes the need for severe penalties. This move focuses on systemic changes and cultural shifts that embody the "savage court" principle and the imperative for patience, deliberation, and dignity.

Actionable Steps:

1. Advocate for "Sanhedrin-Style" Judicial Review Boards and Sentencing Commissions

   • What it is: Support or advocate for the creation of independent, highly-trained judicial review boards or sentencing commissions whose mandate is to regularly review sentencing guidelines, judicial practices, and the overall efficacy and fairness of the justice system. These bodies would function in the spirit of the Sanhedrin's profound patience and deliberation, operating with an explicit "savage court" metric: seeking to identify and reduce instances of extreme penalties, long sentences, and the use of solitary confinement, viewing their frequent application as a sign of systemic failure rather than success.
   • How it works: These commissions would be composed of diverse experts – judges, lawyers, social scientists, ethicists, community leaders, and formerly incarcerated individuals. They would analyze data on sentencing disparities, recidivism rates, and the human cost of current practices. Their recommendations would focus on promoting alternatives to incarceration, advocating for shorter sentences, expanding rehabilitation programs, and ensuring that no two "capital cases" (i.e., cases with severe, life-altering consequences) are rushed through or decided without exhaustive, independent review. The goal is to institutionalize the text’s demand for unhurried, independent judgment, making the system itself accountable for its severity. The "savage court" metric would guide their work, pushing for policies that make severe penalties exceedingly rare.
   • Example: A state sentencing commission might analyze the impact of mandatory minimums, recommending their repeal or modification based on evidence of disproportionate impact and limited efficacy, thereby reducing the number of individuals facing "extreme penalties." They would track how often judges impose maximum sentences for certain crimes, aiming to reduce this frequency as a marker of a more "compassionate" (less "savage") system.
   • Tradeoffs:
     • Political Will: Establishing and empowering such independent bodies requires significant political will and a willingness from existing power structures to cede some authority.
     • Bureaucracy and Slow Change: These commissions can be slow-moving and their recommendations may not always be immediately implemented, requiring sustained advocacy.
     • Resistance from "Tough on Crime" Factions: Any effort to reduce punitive measures will face opposition from those who believe in strict retribution and deterrence, necessitating strong data-driven arguments and public education campaigns.

2. Invest in Community Resilience and Holistic Support Systems (The "Sanhedrin in Tiberias" Principle)

   • What it is: The Mishneh Torah notes that capital punishment was nullified because the Sanhedrin "went into exile" and was not "in its place." It then prophesies that in the future, the Sanhedrin will first convene in Tiberias (a place of learning and practical life) before proceeding to the Temple. This symbolically suggests that true justice, particularly in its most severe forms, requires a foundational, robust, and flourishing community infrastructure before it can even contemplate ultimate judgments. Sustainably, this means redirecting resources from punitive systems towards building resilient communities that prevent the conditions leading to severe harm in the first place.
   • How it works: Advocate for and invest significantly in social determinants of health and well-being: universal access to quality education, affordable housing, mental health services, addiction treatment, job training, and robust public health initiatives. The "Sanhedrin in Tiberias" principle implies that before a community can effectively administer justice for severe crimes, it must first ensure its people are nourished, educated, supported, and have avenues for flourishing. When the community is "in its place"—stable, healthy, and equitable—the conditions for crime are inherently reduced, and the capacity for restorative approaches is enhanced. This is a radical shift from reactive punishment to proactive community care.
   • Example: Champion policies that reallocate funds from prison expansion to community-based mental health clinics, after-school programs, and job placement services for at-risk youth. Support initiatives that provide comprehensive support to families struggling with poverty, ensuring access to essential resources long before crises escalate to criminal activity.
   • Tradeoffs:
     • Long-Term Investment & Delayed Gratification: The positive impacts of investing in community resilience are often long-term and not immediately visible, making it a harder sell for politicians seeking quick wins.
     • Shifting Funding Priorities: This requires a significant reallocation of public funds from existing, entrenched systems (like policing and incarceration) to preventative social services, which faces considerable institutional resistance.
     • Difficulty in Measuring Direct Impact: While intuitively sound, directly correlating specific community investments to crime reduction can be challenging, requiring sophisticated data collection and analysis to demonstrate efficacy.

Measure – One Metric for Accountability

The Mishneh Torah's declaration, "Whenever a court executes a person once in seven years, it is considered a savage court," provides a stark, almost impossible, metric for evaluating judicial severity. While we do not operate under a system of capital punishment today, the spirit of this measurement—that the frequent application of ultimate penalties signifies a flawed, even "savage," system—can and must be translated into a modern, actionable metric for accountability in our pursuit of justice with compassion.

Our metric for accountability must therefore reflect a systemic reduction in the application of the most severe, life-altering, and irreversible consequences within our modern justice system. It should embody the principle that a just and compassionate society strives to minimize the infliction of profound, lasting harm, even on those deemed culpable.

Metric: The "Severity Reduction Index" (SRI)

What it is: The Severity Reduction Index (SRI) measures the year-over-year percentage decrease in the imposition of a defined set of "ultimate penalties" within a specific jurisdiction (e.g., city, county, state). These "ultimate penalties" are not literal executions, but the most severe, life-altering, and often irreversible consequences that our contemporary justice system can inflict.

How it is calculated:

1. Define "Ultimate Penalties"

   For a given jurisdiction, identify and quantify the following categories as "ultimate penalties":

   • Life Sentences (with or without parole): The total number of new life sentences imposed.
   • Sentences Exceeding 20 Years: The total number of new sentences where the minimum term exceeds 20 years.
   • Solitary Confinement (Extended): The number of individuals held in solitary confinement for periods exceeding 30 consecutive days.
   • Youth Transferred to Adult Court: The number of minors transferred from juvenile to adult court.
   • Cash Bail Denials Leading to Pre-Trial Detention: The number of individuals held pre-trial solely due to inability to pay cash bail, for whom an alternative release mechanism was not found (focusing on the most marginalized).

2. Establish a Baseline

   Collect data for each of these categories for a designated baseline year (e.g., the most recent full calendar year).

3. Annual Tracking

   Track the numbers for each category annually.

4. Calculate SRI

   For each subsequent year, calculate the percentage decrease (or increase) in the sum of these "ultimate penalties" compared to the baseline year.

   • Example Calculation:
     • Baseline Year 1 (Total Ultimate Penalties) = (100 Life Sentences) + (500 Sentences > 20 Years) + (200 Solitary Confinement cases) + (50 Youth Transfers) + (1000 Cash Bail Denials) = 1850 total "ultimate penalties."
     • Year 2 (Total Ultimate Penalties) = (90 Life Sentences) + (450 Sentences > 20 Years) + (180 Solitary Confinement cases) + (40 Youth Transfers) + (900 Cash Bail Denials) = 1660 total "ultimate penalties."
     • SRI for Year 2 = (($1850 - $1660) / $1850) * 100% = 10.27% decrease.

What "Done" Looks Like (Aspirational Target):

"Done" is not a single point in time, but a continuous, sustained effort towards a consistent year-over-year decrease in the SRI, aiming for a minimum 5% annual reduction for a period of seven consecutive years.

This seven-year cycle is directly inspired by the Mishneh Torah's "once in seven years" benchmark for a "savage court." Our "done" means transforming a system that might currently be considered "savage" (in its frequent application of ultimate penalties) into one that demonstrates profound restraint and compassion.

• If the SRI consistently decreases by 5% or more annually for seven years: This indicates a systemic shift towards more compassionate and less punitive justice. It suggests that the strategies for radical due process, restorative justice, and community investment are effectively reducing the reliance on severe penalties. The "court" (our broader justice system) is demonstrating that it is not savage, but rather prudent, patient, and deeply reverent of human life and liberty.
• If the SRI plateaus or increases: This signals that the system is failing to embody the spirit of the Mishneh Torah. It would trigger an urgent re-evaluation of policies, judicial practices, and resource allocation, much as the ancient Sanhedrin would have had to re-examine its moral standing if it frequently applied capital punishment.

Why this metric works and its connection to the text:

1. Embodiment of "Savage Court" Principle: Just as a court executing once in seven years was deemed savage, a justice system that frequently imposes its most severe penalties (long sentences, solitary confinement, treating children as adults) is likewise failing in its moral mandate. The SRI seeks to invert this, making the reduction of such penalties the measure of a truly just and compassionate system.
2. Focus on Systemic Restraint: This metric moves beyond individual case outcomes to assess the overall "temperament" of the justice system. It pushes for institutional self-reflection and a collective commitment to restraint, mirroring the Sanhedrin's decision to nullify capital punishment when conditions were compromised.
3. Practical Application of "Patience and Deliberation": Reducing severe penalties requires the very patience, deliberation, and exhaustive scrutiny advocated by the Mishneh Torah. It demands that judges, prosecutors, and policymakers actively seek alternatives, explore mitigating factors, and invest in rehabilitation rather than default to punitive measures.
4. Promotes Dignity and Restoration: By actively reducing the most dehumanizing and isolating penalties, the SRI encourages a system that prioritizes human dignity, opportunity for reform, and reintegration into the community, echoing the practice of reburying bones in ancestral plots.
5. Accountability for Systemic Bias: The categories chosen for "ultimate penalties" (especially youth transfers and cash bail denials) often disproportionately affect marginalized communities. A reduction in these areas directly addresses systemic biases and promotes more equitable justice.

The SRI provides a tangible, data-driven way to hold our justice system accountable to the ancient wisdom of profound caution and compassion, pushing us towards a future where justice is measured not by the severity of its punishments, but by the rarity of its most extreme impositions.

Takeaway

The ancient text, seemingly a relic of a harsher past, unveils itself as a profound blueprint for compassionate justice in our present. Its true teaching is not about the mechanics of execution, but about the impossibility of wielding ultimate power without ultimate humility, caution, and reverence for life. The "savage court" that executes even once in seven years, the meticulous due process that frees the uncertain, and the historic nullification of capital punishment in the absence of sacred conditions—these are not mere legal footnotes. They are prophetic anchors, calling us to a higher standard of justice.

Our journey towards justice with compassion, therefore, is not about finding new ways to punish, but about relentlessly seeking new ways to avoid inflicting irreversible harm. It is about transforming our systems from ones that react with severity to ones that proactively build resilience, exhaust every avenue of doubt, and prioritize human dignity above all else. This requires an institutionalized patience, a radical commitment to thoroughness, and a profound, collective humility that recognizes the inherent fallibility of human judgment.

The ultimate takeaway is this: True justice is measured not by the severity of its sentences, but by the scarcity of its ultimate penalties. A truly just society is one that finds it almost impossible to inflict its gravest consequences, because its foundations are built on such deep compassion, meticulous scrutiny, and unwavering reverence for every human life. We are called to be the Sanhedrin that first convenes in Tiberias—building strong, supportive communities—before it ever considers the awesome, almost unbearable, weight of judgment. This is the path of justice; this is the path of compassion.