The episode at Shechem (Genesis 34) is a complex one. Following an abominable crime committed by the local prince, two of the sons of our patriarch, Yaakov, avenged the crime, wiping out the residents of that city. Our great commentators explore this episode, debating the rationale for Shimon and Levi deciding to take that action. One of the interpretations is that Hashem expects that all societies adopt a clear and just set of rules and statutes. One of those is to institute a system of law and jurisprudence. When a community or a society fails to govern itself by a system of laws, they violate an essential principle of civilization. It was this failure to bring the offending prince to justice that was a violation of Divine law. This was the basis for the considered judicial decision of Shimon and Levi. The people of Shechem were effectively complicit in the crime when they opted to ignore the law and bring the prince to justice.
It is tempting to look at some events in our world today through this lens and ponder some of the changing societal standards. It might be helpful to analyze the psychodynamics of the interpretation above. Namely, what is the mindset of those who are content to set aside legal precedent and argue that situational ethics and context can mitigate the severity of a crime and render it justifiable and even noble?
For example, what are the psychodynamics of viewing the murder of an individual as a justified outcry against “the establishment”? What goes through the minds of individuals who attend a rally in support of a person who committed a murder, claiming that the murder was an expression of (justifiable) frustration and rage with the industry with which the victim was associated?
What is the thinking of those who contend that the court would be committing murder by convicting said defendant and sentencing him to death? What is the implicit assumption of those who anoint a desperado to the status of a martyr?
This discussion is not focused on the law or the mechanics of either the prosecution or defense. Although I serve on a beis din as a dayan, I am not an attorney. I am a mental health clinician and a forensic psychologist. Therefore, rather than discuss legal matters, my focus here is to examine the thinking of certain elements in our society who argue in support of individuals who may have either committed murder or are accused of murder. From the standpoint of our Biblical commentary, we see that some individuals—and societies—will condone crimes when expedient or when they further their own cause. They will reframe or rationalize a crime, casting aside the objective realities that (a) murder is against the law; and (b) those who commit murder should stand trial by a jury of their peers. Instead, they attempt to assert that a person may be justified in killing another if (a) they are frustrated or angry; or (b) they see murder as a legitimate remedy for certain grievances. In their minds, if they are upset about something and kill someone as a result, they are not “taking the law into their own hands” as most would say, but instead cancelling the law itself because they have determined that, due to their anger and frustration, the law does not apply.
From that premise, it is a small leap to set aside the law preemptively and authorize the assassination of any individual who represents a faction, entity, or a cause that annoys or frustrates others. If a perceived social cause mitigates the gravity of a murder after-the-fact, that same cause could encourage murder from the onset. In theory, any target would be fair game if it felt right to the perpetrator. The law is not relevant if one’s frustration can justify taking lethal action.
In clamoring to free a defendant without a trial, a new permutation of the traditional societal statute emerges. Once the law against committing murder is discarded, the mindset of the perpetrators actually resembles that of lynching. Lynching is when the mob mentality determines that a person should be killed, even when there is no legal rationale to do so.
If a person has been acquitted of committing a crime, or has not been tried, yet the popular voice wants him dead and follows through with that action, that is called a lynching. Likewise, when a person has been legitimately accused of a crime, but the popular vote does not want him tried and wants to declare him not guilty “by reason of frustration,” this is also aborting the law. The psychodynamic of lynching can be misused to kill someone without legal justification and also misused to exempt someone from the legal process. When a mob opts to decide to support and justify a crime or kill someone who has been found innocent, that is considered acting outside the law. What both lynching mindsets have in common is that they are pushing to have the law negated.
From the Biblical perspective, that is a violation of a basic principle of civilization. From the Talmudic view (Pirkei Avos 3:2), Jews must pray for a stable government, for without respect for a society’s laws, the society will surely regress into anarchy. n
Rabbi Dr. Dovid Fox is a forensic and clinical psychologist, and director of Chai Lifeline Crisis Services. To contact Chai Lifeline’s 24-hour crisis helpline, call 855-3-CRISIS or email crisis@chailifeline.org. Learn more at www.chailifeline.org/crisis.