Translations:Does Joseph's intent to divorce Mary show that the death penalty for adultery was not mandatory?/3/en

Kayser's intent, in the above example, is to show that the phrase möt yumat (often translated "he shall surely die") does not always signify that death is the just penalty for witnessed adultery in all cases, but merely shows a "maximum" penalty for this crime. And if we take his "Joseph and Mary" example at face value, then it seems that he would suggest even no civil government penalty might be considered a possible "just" outcome from the Biblical perspective (because Joseph's intent merely to divorce came with no civil penalty). He is following Gary North's "victim's rights" theology, whereby the "victim" of the crime (in this case, the husband) is assumed to have the power to negate a legal penalty. Gary North even relies upon the same "Joseph and Mary" example as a lynch-pin for his argument in his book Victim's Rights: