Letting the Guilty Go Free Can Be Very Good
Folk in the United States have been wound up over the Casey Anthony murder trial. Since the jury failed to convict the mother of murdering her four year old daughter there has been much venting of spleen. The jurors have been smeared as idiots with the IQ of brute beasts.
For our part, we believe the jury got it precisely right. One juror being interviewed afterwards was accosted by her interlocutor with the question, "Well, who did kill the child?" and she quite rightly responded, "I do not know." But not knowing is regarded by many as a fundamental dereliction of duty. The Commentariat was sure that the mother was guilty--if the jury was not equally sure it had to be either prejudiced or obtuse or both.
Yet "beyond reasonable doubt" is a very high standard of proof. The state failed to meet that standard.
There were doubts to be had in every direction. One could rightly hold the view that it was "likely" or "probable" that the mother killed her child. But that is a long way short of proving the matter beyond reasonable doubt.
For Christians letting a likely murderer go free is not a big deal. God's halls of justice are perfect, and Casey Anthony will most certainly appear there. Justice in this life can only be inadequate and incomplete. That is not something to be ashamed of--it is reality. But the state's power of bearing the sword is so momentous it is vital that people accused of crimes be presumed innocent and proof of their guilt be to a very high standard.
In the Scriptures the standard of proof required is first hand, eye witness proof--with at least two or three witnesses. If that is the standard under which someone proven guilty will subsequently be executed (Anthony was facing the death penalty) it would mean that lots of murders would go unpunished in this life. But the contrary is too awful to contemplate: that convictions and executions occur of innocent people.
The mob may bay for blood. Secular society may want its sacrifice. Police and prosecutors may want a result. Far better to maintain a very high standard of proof, and risk the guilty going free, than wrongly convicting the innocent. Because we know that the Judge of all the earth will do right, the Christian faith will always demand the highest standards of proof in order to convict. But for secular Unbelieving society the burden of proof will always be eroded over time because justice in the life is the only justice there is. Better to punish the innocent, then, than risk letting the guilty go free.
10 comments:
That's the best post on the subject I've seen so far.
For Christians letting a likely murderer go free is not a big deal.
Strange. My bible says stuff like:
‘But if he strikes him with an iron implement, so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. And if he strikes him with a stone in the hand, by which one could die, and he does die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. Or if he strikes him with a wooden hand weapon, by which one could die, and he does die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. The avenger of blood himself shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death. If he pushes him out of hatred or, while lying in wait, hurls something at him so that he dies, or in enmity he strikes him with his hand so that he dies, the one who struck him shall surely be put to death. He is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.
“But if anyone hates his neighbor, lies in wait for him, rises against him and strikes him mortally, so that he dies ... the elders of his city shall send and bring him from there, and deliver him over to the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with you.
And will you profane Me ... killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live
So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it. Therefore do not defile the land which you inhabit, in the midst of which I dwell; for I the LORD dwell among the children of Israel.’”
Sounds like letting the guilty go is a big deal to God.
Hi, Stripe
We must submit to your Bible. Clearly from the passages you cite, letting "the guilty go" is a big deal to God. But that was not what we were speaking about. We were addressing the case of someone about whose guilt we are not sure because the biblically prescribed standards of proof had not been met. What then?
Well, your Bible also answers that question, on at two levels. According to Deuteronomy 21, (extending the implicit general equity of the text) in our fallen world there will be occasions when people are murdered and no-one can be proven guilty. (Ironically, in the particular case in question the child was found dead lying in open country--so the case is not dissimilar from that described in Deuteronomy.) In such cases, a formal declaration and oath must be taken that the murderer is not known (v.7) and an act of formal expiatory worship is to be conducted to ensure that the guilt not fall on the community as a whole. You are clearly right--murder is not to be taken lightly in any sense. But not to have found the actual guilty party is "no big deal" in the sense that God will not hold us all responsible because we did not convict the (to-us-unknown) guilty party, provided appropriate due diligence procedures have been applied--like a trial, with presentation of evidence, and a determination of guilt or innocence based upon whether guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt.
At the second level, the guilt of innocent blood is clearly revealed to be a minatory curse upon a community as a whole (v.8,9). If a person were to be convicted wrongly and unjustly for a crime of which they were not guilty; that is, of which they were not proven beyond reasonable doubt (that is, by means to two or three eyewitnesses, according to the biblical standard of proof) to be guilty, then the community as a whole would have shed innocent blood (of someone they have not proven to be guilty) and at that point the community itself would become guilty of murder when they executed the accused, shedding innocent blood. Then the curse would rightly fall upon us all.
Consequently your Bible teaches us that it is a very necessary thing that high standards of proof be used to determine guilt. When those standards are not met, we should not lose any sleep over it, even though a murderer has gotten away with it (albeit, in this life only).
JT
Can you show that "reasonable doubt" is a scriptural precedent? The bible speaks of the testimony of two or three witnesses as the standard (and they are not specified as "eye witnesses").
It seems very unlikely that God would require an eye-witness in order to justify the execution of a murderer.
Beyond reasonable doubt is necessarily implied in the demand to have at least two witnesses and preferably three, not just one. If the balance of probabilities were the standard of proof, one witness would do. But for conviction more compelling evidence is required by God in criminal law courts. Hence the essential rectitude of the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.
We thus believe beyond reasonable doubt as applied in our law courts is an attempt to apply the very high "two or three witness" standard of corroboration--otherwise we would have a "balance of probability" standard. One reason for this, no doubt, is the well established syndrome of faulty recall on the part of witnesses. There is also the matter of corruption of witnesses, buying them off, etc. as deployed by Jezebel with such effectiveness.
As to whether the witnesses in the Scriptures are "eye witnesses" it seems that this is necessarily implied--for a witness tells what they saw, heard, experienced, etc.
A lot of cases these days attempt to turn on circumstantial evidence, as you know. Tons of witnesses are called to establish the circumstances--but circumstances are not witnesses, it seems to us, unless you can argue successfully that the circumstantial evidence is somehow compelling.
Fingerprint and DNA evidence gets close--not available in biblical times, of course--but even then must be treated with the need for strongly corroborating co-witnesses. In the Anthony case, it was all circumstantial--and, therefore, never compelling from the start.
In I Timothy 5:19 charges are not to be admitted against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. Let's say an elder is charged with drunkenness. The fact that one person testifies he saw the elder rolling in the gutter completely inebriated is insufficient. Why? The witness might have an axe to grind; he might have mistaken the elder for his doppelganger--or whatever.
You need, according to Paul, at least one other witness, and preferably two.
Implied here is that there is a degree of independence amongst the witnesses. Someone who reports that the accuser came home and told them that he had just seen Elder X lying in the gutter is not an independent witness. So you need someone who also saw the same thing, or stronger yet, had seen Elder X inebriated on another occasion, etc. in order to move beyond reasonable doubt.
So, in the church, the standard is beyond reasonable doubt--evidence must be plural and independently corroborating. But, if in the church, how much more in capital murder charges where a person's life is at stake.
As to your assertion that it seems "very unlikely" that God would require an eye-witness in order to justify the execution of a murderer, what standard of "likeliness" are you applying, we wonder? In other words, why would that seem "unlikely" to you?
JT
Your "implication" requires substance. Of course multiple witnesses will reduce the chance of a false conviction, but in our legal system "innocent until.." and "reasonable doubt" are explicit. You will find no such explicit legal precedent from God. Instead what we find is a strong demand that justice be done and caveats inserted to belay corruption.
We see strong demands that murderers be executed and we must read carefully to find that a false accuser will face execution as well. We see great liberty given to the "avenger of blood" to execute judgement and little leeway given to the man who has accidentally killed someone.
Thus we find that God condemns strongly the released criminal and is relatively silent on the injustice of an innocent man being executed.
I think God knew that good could come of an innocent man being executed, but almost nothing good could come of a guilty man being released.
Hi, Stripe
So, if we understand you rightly, you would argue that one witness is OK, even half a witness, or maybe even no witnesses at all, since good will likely come anyway, even if the innocent is executed. "Balance of probability" would be acceptable since it is better to execute an innocent man than to release a guilty man. Better to be safe than sorry, in other words.
In your understanding, it would appear that you do not believe guilt comes upon the community for shedding the blood of an innocent man via execution. We beg to differ.
Consider carefully the execution of our Lord. He was charged with a capital offence--blasphemy. The requisite number of witnesses was produced. He was even condemned by His own statements. But He was innocent nonetheless, and a terrible divine judgment fell upon the nation of Israel as a result. It is no light thing to execute an innocent man under the false presumption of guilt--as Jezebel and Ahab found out. Since when did it become acceptable to do evil that good might come?
Finally, we disagree that "almost nothing good could come of a guilty man being released." How about the preservation of a just society? How about the state respecting the sanctity of human life?
We could not agree with you more that the law of God places the highest sanctity upon human life. It is precisely because of this that the very, very high standards of proof are required in the Bible to determine guilt need to be scrupulously kept. If not, then the sanctity of human life is compromised. Two wrongs don't make a right, as they say.
It is the pagan philosophy of utilitarianism which argues that the "greater good" justifies punishing the innocent for crime. The reasoning runs pretty close to what you appear to be advocating: better to punish someone than risk letting the guilty go free, because in the end a greater good will result.
No, the greater good will come only if we are scrupulous to obey God at all points. And He requires two or three witnesses in order to establish guilt.
We remain curious, however. Clearly you want us all to respect the Scriptures. Well and good. So why are you not willing to submit to the "two or three witness" rule for establishing guilt? Since this is arguably a higher standard than our current "beyond reasonable doubt", we would be very happy to see us return to this higher biblical standard of proof and replace the lesser "beyond reasonable doubt". Would you agree?
JT
No, you do not understand me rightly. One witness is not OK. And guilt does come on the community for executing an innocent man.
What you're doing is being very ungracious in your reading.
And here are the important things you have gotten wrong. Israel was not cut off because they executed Christ. They were cut off because they rejected their risen saviour. And you're wrong in thinking a just society might be preserved. We do not live in a just society to begin with.
I hope you'll think this through.
Thanks.
Hi, Stripe
If you accept that two or three witnesses are required by the law of God in order to convict, then I am content. By this standard, Casey Anthony would never have gone to trial in the first place, and if by some quirk she did, she would most certainly have been acquitted.
On the matter of the guilt of Israel over the unjust execution of Christ, you should consider the indictment of the Apostle Peter to the crowd at Pentecost of all Israel: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified." Acts 2:37. It was right at the point that they were charged with that crime that the text says they were "pierced to the heart" (v.38). But, then again, maybe the apostles had it wrong?
Also, compare the indictment brought by Peter to the crowd in Acts 3: 12-17. Clearly the apostles in preaching the Gospel to Israel were charging Israel with the crime of executing the Innocent One. So your argument is with the Apostles really.
In this vein also, consider the parable of the Son of the Vineyard Owner: Matthew 21:33-41; Luke 20:9-18. When they had taken the Son and killed Him, our Lord says--"when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinegrowers? He will come and destroy them." At this point, maybe you would like to reconsider your assertion that "Israel was not cut off because they executed Christ."
Now to be sure they were also indicted because they rejected the risen Lord, but the latter evil does not rule out the great evil of the former. A second indictment does not rule out the former indictment.
As to whether guilt comes upon a whole community for executing an innocent man, your argument is really with Deuteronomy 21: 1-9, not with me. What do you think "and do not place the guilt of innocent blood in the midst of Thy people Israel," and "so you shall remove the guilt of innocent blood from your midst," mean?
As to whether we live in a just society or not, the matter at issue is more or less justice, is it not. Or would you really want to argue that New Zealand is equally unjust as, say, Stalin's Soviet Union, or Mao's Cultural Revolution? We hope not.
Cheers,
JT
Casey Anthony could have been convicted by the testimony of her family members, friends on the basis of the testimony of the coroner.
Romans 10 describes why Israel was rejected. They are rejected because they reject their risen saviour. They can not be rejected because they executed Jesus else how might they be saved?
And I have never said no guilt comes from executing an innocent man.
And calling our nation unjust is not negated by claiming there are others more unjust.
Post a Comment