The Death Penalty Bill: Q&A

Photo: © Alanhutcheson | Dreamstime.com

The Knesset is advancing a death penalty bill: Penal Code (Amendment—Death Penalty for Terrorists). Below is information about the bill, which ACRI unequivocally opposes. 

What does the bill stipulate? 

The most recent version of the bill, which was published on January 27, 2026, seeks to impose a mandatory death penalty for defendants convicted of murder motivated by terrorism in military courts in the West Bank, and a discretionary death penalty in courts within Israel for those convicted of murder on a nationalist basis with the intent to harm citizens or residents of the State of Israel. 

The proposal addresses the application of the death penalty in military courts in the territories and in civilian courts in Israel, separately, since these operate within two separate and distinct legal systems. 

Military courts 

For military courts, the Minister of Defense would instruct the military commander to amend the relevant order applicable in the territories and change the procedures of the military courts, so that the death penalty will be a mandatory punishment for offenses involving causing death under circumstances of terrorism. 

The bill also seeks to lower the threshold required for imposing the death sentence in the military courts: a simple majority would suffice to impose the death penalty, rather than a unanimous decision, and judges will also no longer be required to hold the rank of lieutenant colonel or higher. 

The bill also revokes the authority of the military commander to exercise discretion to pardon those convicted or to commute their sentences. 

Civilian courts within Israel 

For civilian courts within Israel, the proposal seeks to add the death penalty as a punishment for murder under aggravated circumstances of terrorism committed with the intent to harm a citizen or resident of Israel. 

What are the fundamental and moral problems with the death penalty? 

The death penalty is cruel and violent. It contravenes the fundamental principle underlying human rights and democracy: that life and human dignity are sacred. Moreover, the death penalty is final and irreversible, and a justice system administered by humans is never immune to error. There is a real danger of wrongful convictions that could lead to the execution of innocent people. 

More than two‑thirds of the countries in the world have already abolished the death penalty. Seeking to increase its application runs contrary to the global trend among developed countries. 

Why not impose the death penalty in especially horrific cases of murder? 

The death penalty is fundamentally unacceptable, regardless of the severity of the crime. It corrupts society and entrenches norms of violence and indifference to the value of life. 

Throughout the history of the State of Israel, the death penalty has been carried out only once, and the state has even taken pride before the United Nations in a policy of refraining from using this punishment, even in the most extreme cases. 

What are the legal problems with establishing the death penalty as a “mandatory punishment?" 

Establishing a mandatory punishment eliminates the judicial discretion of the court to tailor the sentence to the circumstances of the case. But beyond the ways in which it undermines the authority and independence of the courts, it also contravenes international law: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Israel is a signatory, guarantees every person sentenced to death the right to seek a pardon or commutation of the sentence. 

What about deterrence for potential perpetrators of terrorism? 

Research from around the world has found no evidence that the death penalty acts as a more effective deterrence than prison sentences. Studies conducted around the world have found no link between the existence of the death penalty and lower crime rates. 

This is especially true regarding acts of terrorism carried out on an ideological basis, by people who are already willing or even aspire to die. The death penalty may even have the opposite effect of deterrence by creating a model for imitation or a motivation for revenge. 

How will the bill affect the government’s ability to carry out hostage‑release deals in the future? 

One of the stated goals of the bill is to undermine the incentive to carry out kidnappings for the purpose of prisoner‑exchange deals. The thinking is that when there are Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons who have carried out terrorist attacks, it creates an incentive for terrorist organizations to kidnap Israelis in order to make deals and release the prisoners. If every terrorist who carries out a terrorist attack in which people were murdered is executed, there would be no "serious" prisoners in the prisons, and there would therefore be less incentive to kidnap Israelis. But there may actually be cases in which the government would want to release murderers in exchange for hostages. The death penalty would prevent the government from making that decision, and would constrain the government’s ability to use its discretion, as well as various political and diplomatic tools, to reach various agreements, including agreements that would release future Israeli hostages. 

What is the position of Israel’s security institutions (the military, the National Security Council, the Shin Bet)?

Israel’s security institutions have consistently expressed opposition to imposing the death penalty on perpetrators of terrorist acts. In addition to the arguments regarding the lack of deterrence and the risk that the executed will serve as a models for imitation, as mentioned above, they also raised concerns that condemned inmates awaiting execution would incentivize terrorist organizations to kidnap soldiers and civilians in order to use them as bargaining chips to prevent executions. These groups also raised concerns that a mandatory death sentence would intensify battles and raise the risk to the lives of soldiers, since those who know they would be sentenced to death in a military court would be more likely to refuse to surrender to security forces and would fight more fiercely in order to die in battle rather than on the gallows. The conclusion that they drew was that the overall security damage resulting from the application of the death penalty would far outweigh any expected benefit. 

The Shin Bet recently expressed a somewhat different position, which was also presented during a discussion in the Knesset’s National Security Committee. According to the Shin Bet, in the wake of October 7 there is value in having the option of the death penalty on the statute books. However, there is no certainty about how the death penalty would affect someone intending to carry out a terrorist act: it may negatively affect some people, as described above, while others might be deterred. The Shin Bet also requested that there be flexibility in imposing the death penalty in accordance with different security assessments, and therefore opposes a mandatory death penalty. 

Why is the bill discriminatory and racist? 

The bill effectively singles out Palestinians as the only group subject to the death penalty, because only Palestinians are tried in military courts, while Israeli citizens (including settlers) are tried in civilian courts. Moreover, the bill provides that Palestinian residents may be prosecuted only in military courts, even though current law allows, in certain cases, for them to be prosecuted in courts within Israel. 

In the military courts, the death penalty is set as mandatory: any Palestinian in the territories who is tried for murder under circumstances of terrorism and convicted will be sentenced to death. In contrast, in the civilian courts within Israel, the death penalty is the maximum punishment but is not mandatory. 

It is also important to note that the crime subject to the death penalty focuses on nationalist‑based violence to citizens and residents of the State of Israel, thereby creating a hierarchy in which Palestinian violence against Jewish people is perceived as more severe than Jewish violence against Palestinians. 

What is the problem with changing the processes in the military courts in the territories? 

As noted, according to the bill the Minister of Defense will instruct the military commander to amend the relevant order applicable in the territories and change the situation in the military courts. The problem is that, under international law, the military commander is the sovereign authority in the occupied territories and bears governmental powers. The Knesset is not authorized to dictate the content of military orders or to limit the commander’s powers since it has no authority over the territories. 

An attempt by the Knesset to impose this legislation on the military commander contradicts international law and the law of occupation, and constitutes a step in the de facto annexation of the territories. Revoking the authority of the military commander to mitigate punishment or grant clemency also contradicts the Fourth Geneva Convention and other human rights treaties to which Israel is bound. 

What concerns arise from lowering the procedural requirements in the military courts? 

The proposal to abolish the requirement for unanimity in imposing the death sentence and replace it with the need for a simple majority, together with lowering the rank requirements for judges, weakens the safeguards intended to prevent irreversible errors and the conviction of innocent people. 

This danger is particularly acute in the military justice system, where there is an increased risk of false confessions. This risk arises from a combination of characteristics of security interrogations (such as denial of access to legal counsel and the use of extreme interrogation methods, including torture), the absence of procedural protections, and the nearly exclusive reliance on confessions as the basis for convictions. 

Who will carry out the sentence? 

The bill provides that the sentence will be carried out by a prison guard. Although it is stipulated that the identity of the guard would be confidential, there is reason to be concerned about the psychological, moral, and social consequences for those who will be required to carry out the death penalty.