Need responses of 150-200 words for each of the following. Provide at least one reference with each response.
1. I want to first preface this post by saying that I believe "all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16, NIV). With that being said, all of the verses we were asked to examine are Old Testament law for the nation of Israel not for all Christians. When Jesus died on the cross he put an end to that Old Testament law (Romans 10:4, Galatians 3:23-25), and we are no longer held to that standard. Thus, the verses on witnesses, cross examination, and physical evidence are useful guidelines, but they do not hold sway for our laws today.
On the subject of witnessing, our system today does not require anyone who witnesses a crime to come forward and say so. A person who does witness a crime and does come forward can remain anonymous, unless they are subpoenaed to court. This varies greatly to the Biblical standard in Deuteronomy because Israel was a community and they probably all knew one another to some degree. Their word also meant more than it does today, and the two-witness requirement was a safeguard to ensure that no one was punished for something they did not do. Today we have different types of safeguards in place such as; jury trials, evidence requirements, and other procedures.
In our criminal justice system today witness cross examination is considered the hallmark for discovering the truth. It allows a lawyer the opportunity to question a witness to make sure that what they are reporting is actually the truth. As Proverbs 18:17 points out we as humans typically take the word of the first person's story we hear. It isn't until we hear another side, other evidence, or contradictions that we question the original story. This is very useful not only for Israel, but also for us today in order to ensure no one is giving false testimony. I remember a case where a female reported her boyfriend had assaulted her and he was arrested. However, at trial she told a different story then what she had reported and written down on a witness statement. Because of this she was arrested when she left the stand due to her false testimony. Therefore, I believe out system today matches up very well to the Biblical one.
Finally, physical evidence is very different today than it was then. Today we are guided by many laws and procedures for not only collecting evidence, but preserving it and presenting it in court. In the textbook Worrall states that physical evidence is the opposite of testimonial evidence (2015). In our world today we rely more on the physical evidence and less on testimonial. However, in the Biblical times testimonial evidence was typically all they had, and obviously they did not have our technology to process physical evidence. Therefore, we are better equipped to handle physical evidence, but we can still rely on Biblical principles when dealing with evidence through integrity and honesty.
References:
Worrall, J. L. (2015). Criminal Procedure: From First Contact to Appeal (5th ed.). Retrieved from [email protected]:0
2. For witnesses, Deuteronomy 19:15 and 17:6 both confirm my views of how criminal procedure should be executed. However, in some cases, the second and third witness can be bias to the first witness, still jading the truth of the situation. Sometimes, witnesses are family or friends that were at the scene, and the truth is not always their priority. Therefore, I would posit that objective witnesses that are not linked to any of the parties involved should be required. However, this is unrealistic, and sometimes crimes are committed without others around to be a witness. That is why a "witness examination process can help to determine whether witnesses are reliable and trustworthy" (Worrall, 2015, p. 251). Furthermore, witnesses should try to use current technology to help the credibility of their statements. With today's technology, people can record others actions, giving victims of crimes multiple witnesses. This will help with all crimes, whether the death penalty is an option or not. Although I firmly believe that putting a criminal to death should require more than one witness, some sex offenders only commit their crime to one witness. This is a tough area to cover. If the justice system let sex offenders off because there was only the victim as the witness, then what does that tell the victim? However, what if the victim is a false witness for whatever reason? If we put a suspect to death on a false witness, then we should punish the false witness with death (Deuteronomy 19:16-20)? I think the court system with witnesses has done a great job balancing truth and false witness testimonies.
I did not know much about cross examination, but after reading about it and studying the scriptures, I would agree with their view of criminal procedure. John Worrall (2015) posits that direct examination by the prosecution followed by cross examination from the defense allows the court, jury, and judge to find the truth in the witness's testimony. Furthermore, the court process does not allow any questions that are outside of the scope of the trial at hand, keeping the facts to the current situation. I think that our current systems incorporates Proverbs 18:17 and Deuteronomy 19:16-18. The penalty for a false witness is perjury, and punishable with fines and up to five years in prison (England, 2016). This is not what is stated in Deuteronomy 19:19. If a witness falsely accused someone of rape and tried to get the death penalty for them, the courts would not reverse the charge and submit the false witness to death. It may be hard to think that a false witness should get what they are trying to give, but this is to save innocent people, and to deter individuals from lying. When God gave us the information in the Bible, it was to help us all live a righteous life, not a sympathetic life for people who are maliciously trying to ruin someone else's life. The current court system should have harsh punishments for false witnesses, further deterring the malicious testimonies some witnesses may bring.
Both scriptures confirmed that physical evidence should be required to find guilt, or alleviate one from an accusation. Without evidence or direct witnesses, the evidence may be considered skeptical or hearsay (Worrall, 2015). Therefore, the requirement of physical evidence, whether testimonial, physical, documentary, digital, exculpatory, scientific, genetic, or eyewitness, should always be required for a full and complete conviction. During trial, the court requires evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect is guilty to be able to convict them of the crime. However, sometimes the suspect will be offered a plea bargain instead of going to trial, allowing them a lighter sentence then if they were found guilty at trial. Although this is helpful in freeing up the courts and helping guilty criminals have a lesser sentence, it can also criminalize innocent people who are afraid the evidence of their innocence is slim or lacking. In their favor. Since it is hard to find the truth with a fallen society (Romans 3:23), implementing lie detector tests for incriminating testimonies, and having a strict punishment for false witness may help balance the scales of justice.
• England, D., C. (2016) Purjery: Laws and penalties. Criminal Defense Lawyers. Retrieved from https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/perjury.htm
• Worrall, L., J. (2015). Criminal Procedure from First Contact to Appeal (5th ed.). Upper Sattle River, NJ: Pearson Education. ISBN 10: 0-13-349495-0