Saturday, February 04, 2006

Ancient Thought, Modern Process

"Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness. The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people." Deuteronomy 17:6-7

In what Moses is said to have written to the people of Israel, the text suggests to the people that the only way someone can be convicted of a capital crime is if there are genuine witnesses, presumably eye witnesses who can attest - with the same story - that they actually saw the crime take place. Then and only then can the guilty be put to death. This is not unlike so much we have seen in TV lawyer shows when attorneys suddenly rise on the testimony of a witness and shout, "Objection, your honor! Hearsay!"

It is fundamental to our system of justice that if one did not actually see a crime take place or was not party to a particular conversation, then one cannot accurately testify to the legitimacy of the claim. Whether something actually happened or was actually said must come from first-hand knowledge, not second-hand information.

There have been several in the last few years who have been released from prison or given a reprieve from death row because DNA evidence proved their innocence or at least cast enough doubt to give the condemned person the benefit. But while this DNA evidence is getting some released from prison, DNA evidence is also serving as a reliable witness to get others put away. I cannot cite a particular case in which DNA was used to condemn someone to death, but I am certain it may come to that if it has not already.

The Lord God established a system of justice centuries ago as a means by which we could govern ourselves with divine guidance. The idea of such a system of justice would leave little to chance in demanding that eye witnesses be part of the process. DNA may very well be a reliable witness in and of itself, but this DNA has to be processed by man. There is always a risk of evidence, DNA or otherwise, being tainted by the fallible nature of man even if the best of intentions are in place. So when the Day of the Lord is upon us and He asks about those we put to death in this country, do you think He will accept DNA evidence as part of the process?

I have to say that I have never been very comfortable with the death penalty. There are too many variables involved in the judicial process - including human emotion - and now, by the time a person accused of a capital crime is brought to trial, the entire state knows what this person looks like and has pretty much settled the case long before a judge has heard the first word. And depending on the nature of the crime, it may be that our hearts are so hardened that we would not be willing to accept a district attorney's decision to drop the matter due to lack of hard evidence because our minds will have already been made up.

Those I once considered as "bleeding hearts" have finally made a little inroad into my thought process. The truth is that our system of justice works best and most often in favor of those who can afford the more expensive and experienced attorneys. Those who because of economic circumstances are forced to depend on a government lawyer to defend them are genuinely gambling with their lives for no reason other than that they cannot afford an attorney.

While it may be "just" that a person be put to death for taking the life of another, judging by the responses of far too many citizens, "justice" is the furthest thing from our minds once we are able to attach a name and a face to a crime. I suppose by that point, the accused may as well be put to death because in reality, their life is all but over anyway, convicted by the court of public opinion with "hearsay" and put to death by the hardness of unforgiving hearts blinded by grief and emotion, never minding facts to the contrary.

Is it just possible that the Lord, in His infinite wisdom, was not only giving us a standard by which to govern but was also giving us a system by which we would be protected - from ourselves?

2 comments:

John said...

Interesting. I really like how you apply Biblical principles to areas of modern life not often thought of in a Biblical context.

Michael said...

You're very kind, John. Thank you for those words. But just like with politics, I cannot segregate my "biblical" thinking as if the Bible has nothing to do with anything else. I just wish I was better at "practical application"!!!