The Death Penalty Law: Q&A

Photo: © Alanhutcheson | Dreamstime.com

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

What does the law say? 

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. The bill passed and became law on March 30, 2026, after which ACRI immediately petitioned the Supreme Court to repeal the law. The wording of the law has undergone a number of changes, and may continue to be changed. As of March 30, 2026, these are the main points:  

• Palestinians convicted of terror-related murder in military courts in the territories would face a mandatory death sentence, unless the court determines that there are special circumstances that should commute the sentence to life in prison. The defendant would have the right to appeal the death sentence.  

• The threshold for imposing the death penalty would be lowered. Rather than a unanimous decision by the judges, only a simple majority would be required. The judges would not have to be of the rank of lieutenant colonel or higher. 

• The Military Commander would not have the authority to exercise discretion and offer pardons or commute sentences. 

• In Israeli courts, a person convicted of terror-related murder committed with the intent to eradicate the State of Israel would be sentenced to death or life imprisonment.  

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 would be a mandatory punishment for offenses involving causing death motivated by terrorism unless the court determines that special circumstances justify imposing a life sentence. 

The law also lowers 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 law 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 deny the existence of the State of Israel. 

Will the law apply to the terrorists who participated in the October 7 massacre? 

 No. Though proponents of the law have tried to link it to the October 7 massacre, the law will not apply to Nukhba terrorists. They will be tried under a different law specific to them. The death penalty law referred to here will apply only to offenses committed after the law enters into force. 

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

One of the stated goals of the law 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 law discriminatory and racist? 

The law effectively limits the death penalty to Palestinians only, because only Palestinians are tried in military courts, while Israeli citizens (including settlers) are tried in civilian courts. In military courts, the death penalty is mandatory, except in cases where special circumstances exist, and therefore the law’s default is that any Palestinian in the territories who stands trial for terror-related murder and is convicted will be sentenced to death. In contrast, in Israeli civilian courts the death penalty is the maximum sentence, but not mandatory. Furthermore, the definition of the offense punishable by death in Israeli courts focuses on the intent to negate the existence of the State of Israel, which in effect directs the death penalty only to Arabs. 

What are the problems with changing the processes in the military courts in the territories with respect to international law?  

• The law states that the Minister of Defense shall order the military commander to amend the relevant order applicable in the territories and to change the system in the military courts. However, according to international law, the military commander is the sovereign in the occupied territories, who holds the powers of governance. The Knesset is not authorized to dictate orders to the military commander, or limit the military commander's powers. An attempt by the Knesset to impose this kind of legislation on the military commander contravenes international law and the laws of occupation, and is a step towards a de facto annexation of the territories to Israel. 

  
  

• In accordance with the Geneva Convention and the Hague Regulations, the military commander has an obligation to preserve the legal situation in the occupied territory to the extent possible. The proposed change violates this obligation. 

  
  

• The revocation of the military commander’s authority to commute sentences or grant pardons contradicts the Fourth Geneva Convention and other human rights treaties to which Israel is bound. 

  
  

• The fact that the proposal effectively limits the death penalty to Palestinians alone also contravenes international treaties that prohibit racial discrimination and the establishment of different legal systems for different populations. 

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

Abolishing the requirement for unanimity in imposing the death sentence and replacing 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 law 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.