Search
Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Browse By Room
Search Tips
Virtual Exhibit Hall
Personal Schedule
Sign In
Although Israel’s military courts retain the formal authority to impose death sentences in terrorism cases, no execution has been carried out since their inception in 1967. This study adopts a criminological perspective to explore how these courts reconcile persistent public calls for maximal retribution in high-profile terrorism cases with institutional and security-driven constraints that preclude the use of capital punishment.
Grounded in Dan-Cohen’s (1984; 2015) concepts of “acoustic separation” and “selective transmission,” the analysis draws on a corpus of military court verdicts, appellate decisions, and official policies. The findings reveal a multifaceted judicial strategy that preserves the theoretical availability of the death penalty while systematically commuting it to life imprisonment. Relying on both procedural mechanisms—such as unanimous rulings by senior, legally qualified judges—and sophisticated linguistic frameworks, judges denounce violent acts and affirm the severity of perpetrators’ actions. Simultaneously, they invoke cultural and religious references to underscore societal outrage. Yet the practical realities of international scrutiny, strategic policy considerations, and concerns about potential negative repercussions steer the courts away from actualizing capital punishment.
The study’s contributions are twofold. First, it elucidates the nuanced interplay between public opinion and judicial self-restraint in conflict-ridden environments. Second, it advances criminological theory by illustrating how legal institutions calibrate punitive symbolism to maintain legitimacy while curtailing irreversible penalties. In doing so, this research illuminates broader questions regarding judicial decision-making under conditions of protracted violence and contentious domestic politics.