If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Blogger.com)   The modern criminal justice system is flawed because it fails to adhere to Biblical standards, resulting in more: a) homosexuality, b) drug use, or c) false convictions?   (gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com) divider line 58
    More: Interesting, miscarriage of justice, country legal systems, criminal justice system  
•       •       •

1902 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Oct 2013 at 10:54 AM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-10-12 07:13:38 AM
Yes, it's true we should be stoning people to death because they wear polyester / cotton blend clothing.
 
2013-10-12 07:32:37 AM
i believe they used to call it "lewd behavior?"  throw a "u" in there if you're feeling british... img.fark.net
 
2013-10-12 09:41:38 AM
And another Constitutional expert is loose again....

Let's just stick to:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..."
 
2013-10-12 09:51:56 AM
After actually reading the farking article... it's rather reasonable. Person A says Person B did Crime X, but there is no evidence of Crime X. More often than is expected... there was no Crime X committed but Person B goes to jail on the testimony of Person A. Maybe we need a few more Person C's,D's' and E's to testify before convicting Person B of Crime X?

/Sure it's mentioned in the bible, but so is not murdering people. Broken clock says it's 12:00 at 12:00? It's still 12:00 even if the clock is broken.
 
2013-10-12 10:52:51 AM

Techhell: actually reading the farking article... it's rather reasonable.


The conclusion may be rather reasonable; the premises and inferences to reach it? Not so much.
 
2013-10-12 10:56:42 AM
img1.fark.net

Therefore DNRTFA

/your blog sucks
//your blog ALWAYS sucks
 
2013-10-12 10:56:58 AM

abb3w: Techhell: actually reading the farking article... it's rather reasonable.

The conclusion may be rather reasonable; the premises and inferences to reach it? Not so much.


In fact, the method is downright dangerous and usually leads to people being killed.
 
2013-10-12 10:59:18 AM
False convictions in biblical times? Inconceivable!

i43.photobucket.com
 
2013-10-12 10:59:48 AM
So, what I'm getting out of this is, if you commit a crime, make sure to kill all the witnesses.
 
2013-10-12 11:00:17 AM
It's flawed because of the distinct lack of Batman in the justice system
 
2013-10-12 11:03:20 AM
If only a lawmaking body had put in place a means of assuring that people weren't irreversibly punished for a false conviction.

/and if only a bunch of shiatstains hadn't repealed it
 
2013-10-12 11:07:11 AM

Dinki: False convictions in biblical times? Inconceivable!

[i43.photobucket.com image 640x480]



Irony of that being if you believe that was a false conviction, then Jesus wasn't the king of the jews as the sign says.
 
2013-10-12 11:08:50 AM

Techhell: After actually reading the farking article... it's rather reasonable. Person A says Person B did Crime X, but there is no evidence of Crime X. More often than is expected... there was no Crime X committed but Person B goes to jail on the testimony of Person A. Maybe we need a few more Person C's,D's' and E's to testify before convicting Person B of Crime X?


Seriously.  I mean, look how the Near East handles rape cases.  You can be absolutely assured no man's going to have his life ruined by some 12-year-old whore with buyer's remorse.
 
2013-10-12 11:13:28 AM
So, considering all of the anti-Christian backlash, I am to assume all of you are OKAY with false convictions then?
 
2013-10-12 11:18:56 AM
I intended to read TFA, really I did. Then I go to the second sentence, which bizarrely appears to equate murder and sex, and decided it's probably best that I not continue reading.
 
2013-10-12 11:19:25 AM

rjakobi: So, considering all of the anti-Christian backlash, I am to assume all of you are OKAY with false convictions then?


Nah we just don't attempt to cherry pick the 3000 year old legal sytem of patriarchal nomadic tribes to support our arguments.
 
2013-10-12 11:19:54 AM
Not mine, but I am guessing this is his reaction
creativeoverflow.net
 
2013-10-12 11:21:32 AM

Chariset: Techhell: After actually reading the farking article... it's rather reasonable. Person A says Person B did Crime X, but there is no evidence of Crime X. More often than is expected... there was no Crime X committed but Person B goes to jail on the testimony of Person A. Maybe we need a few more Person C's,D's' and E's to testify before convicting Person B of Crime X?

Seriously.  I mean, look how the Near East handles rape cases.  You can be absolutely assured no man's going to have his life ruined by some 12-year-old whore with buyer's remorse.


I know! Just look at how farked up the Tennessee justice system is. And let's not get started on Georgia. Or into the far east, like Maine. I mean... wow. Those places are... well, just don't commit a crime there. Heck, don't even go there. Don't even think about going there.

/Delaware isn't bad, though. Might be something in the water.
 
2013-10-12 11:25:31 AM
Well the method to arrive at the conclusion isn't how I would go but applying greater scrutiny to accusations isn't illogical.  There have been multiple stories are fark where prosecutors have obtained false convictions and accusers have later admitted they were lying.
 
2013-10-12 11:26:50 AM

Fast Moon: So, what I'm getting out of this is, if you commit a crime, make sure to kill all the witnesses.


That's what I got from it as well. Does that make us sociopaths?
 
2013-10-12 11:27:02 AM

apoptotic: I intended to read TFA, really I did. Then I go to the second sentence, which bizarrely appears to equate murder and sex, and decided it's probably best that I not continue reading.


FTA: One frequently hears Christians lament how far society has strayed from biblical teachings, and it's true. In many cases that's a good thing, as one needn't look far to find abhorrent examples like the murdering of homosexuals or non-virgin brides.

Erm... what article are you reading, and is English your first language? It seems pretty clear that the author is saying that it is a GOOD thing that society has decided to stray from biblical laws like the ones that say murdering homosexuals and non-virgin brides is acceptable.

Maybe you should have actually read the first two sentences?
 
2013-10-12 11:27:12 AM
The US justice system is inherently flawed because it is not designed to bring justice, all the is promised in the Constitution is due process.
 
2013-10-12 11:27:59 AM

Gergesa: Well the method to arrive at the conclusion isn't how I would go but applying greater scrutiny to accusations isn't illogical.  There have been multiple stories are fark where prosecutors have obtained false convictions and accusers have later admitted they were lying.


Yeah, but whenever somebody tries to do something about it, all we hear is, "You're coddling criminals!  You're not Tough On Crime™!"
 
2013-10-12 11:30:43 AM

abb3w: Techhell: actually reading the farking article... it's rather reasonable.

The conclusion may be rather reasonable; the premises and inferences to reach it? Not so much.


Please point out the premises and inferences used in the article which you disagree with, using quotations from the article itself.
 
2013-10-12 11:31:44 AM
gritsforbreakfast

this blog's name seems maddeningly familiar...
 
2013-10-12 11:34:33 AM

rjakobi: So, considering all of the anti-Christian backlash, I am to assume all of you are OKAY with false convictions then?


Threads like this reinforce my stance about not telling people I'm an atheist, and ironically often makes me defend the believers being attacked.
 
2013-10-12 11:38:26 AM
Good to see Scott Henson is still pounding away at the insanity of Texas law. This guy is actually the person who introduced me to Fark back in 2005 when one of his blog posts was greenlit here.

For those of you who may not know, he's the same guy who was jacked up by Austin police for walking his bi-racial grand daughter home from school...while being white.

This dude is single-handedly responsible for more legal reform than any other person in the state. He should be sainted by the Pope.
 
2013-10-12 11:39:36 AM

Techhell: apoptotic: I intended to read TFA, really I did. Then I go to the second sentence, which bizarrely appears to equate murder and sex, and decided it's probably best that I not continue reading.

FTA: One frequently hears Christians lament how far society has strayed from biblical teachings, and it's true. In many cases that's a good thing, as one needn't look far to find abhorrent examples like the murdering of homosexuals or non-virgin brides.

Erm... what article are you reading, and is English your first language? It seems pretty clear that the author is saying that it is a GOOD thing that society has decided to stray from biblical laws like the ones that say murdering homosexuals and non-virgin brides is acceptable.

Maybe you should have actually read the first two sentences?


I blame insufficient caffeine. I read it as saying non-virgin brides were abhorrent, not the murdering of them.
 
2013-10-12 11:40:07 AM
Because having a godly court means that false convictions would never happen.

nanquick.files.wordpress.com
globetribune.info
 
2013-10-12 11:40:47 AM

Chariset: Seriously.  I mean, look how the Near East handles rape cases.  You can be absolutely assured no man's going to have his life ruined by some 12-year-old whore with buyer's remorse.


Just so long as our collegiate rugby teams are safe.
 
2013-10-12 11:44:45 AM

Techhell: Please point out the premises and inferences used in the article which you disagree with, using quotations from the article itself.


I believe he is saying that regardless of conclusion, if the underlying philosophy a person uses to reach that conclusion is based upon the teachings of Christ or the Jewish religious society, it's wrong. I don't understand these people, and in many ways find them hypocritical because they espouse that a persons actions should not be effected in any way by their spirituality and philosophical beliefs, yet the two can never be disengaged from each other and they themselves base their actions upon their own version of spirituality and philosophical beliefs.

Example: Supporting the passage of a bill because it agrees with your Christian beliefs is bad, but supporting the same bill because it agrees with your Humanistic beliefs is just peachy.

Personally I believe that much of it is left over rebellion against a persons parents traditions which keeps people from seeing the entirety of the Monotheistic religions and their beneficial effect they've had on civilization throughout history. From this perspective it's easy to neglect the fact that human beings are flawed by nature and therefore anything ruled and governed by man will also be flawed. (i.e. Because monotheists throughout history have not acted perfectly within the boundries of their espoused beliefs, the entire establishment is garbage) The most recent and therefore egregious failing being the child molestation being covered up by the Catholic Church; though you'll notice College Football as an institution withstood it's cover up, and Public Schools are still hailed as bastions of goodness despite the almost daily stories of teachers molesting their students.
 
2013-10-12 11:58:32 AM

Techhell: After actually reading the farking article... it's rather reasonable. Person A says Person B did Crime X, but there is no evidence of Crime X. More often than is expected... there was no Crime X committed but Person B goes to jail on the testimony of Person A. Maybe we need a few more Person C's,D's' and E's to testify before convicting Person B of Crime X?

/Sure it's mentioned in the bible, but so is not murdering people. Broken clock says it's 12:00 at 12:00? It's still 12:00 even if the clock is broken.


Of course that same standard is applied in the Mideast where you need 3 witnesses to the rape in order to get a conviction.
 
2013-10-12 12:03:45 PM
So if you're going to molest some kid don't leave any witnesses.  It's the Biblical Way!
 
2013-10-12 12:10:23 PM

edmo: And another Constitutional expert is loose again....

Let's just stick to:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..."


Rtfa dumbass.
 
2013-10-12 12:15:02 PM
the "two or three witnesses" standard

Is stupid on a couple of levels.

DNA, fingerprints, footprints, gps info from phones, paper trials and video are all more reliable that eye witnesses.

On the plus side the sucky blog writer has evolved enuff to recognize that killing gay folks for being gay and murdering non virgins who dare to marry are morally abhorrent propositions. So that's nice.
 
2013-10-12 12:34:38 PM

quatchi: the "two or three witnesses" standard

Is stupid on a couple of levels.

DNA, fingerprints, footprints, gps info from phones, paper trials and video are all more reliable that eye witnesses.

On the plus side the sucky blog writer has evolved enuff to recognize that killing gay folks for being gay and murdering non virgins who dare to marry are morally abhorrent propositions. So that's nice.


You do realize that the author is talking about cases where the accusation of a SINGLE witness/victim is the basis for the case, right? Where the evidence comes from that witness/victim too? (At best, I'd assume that the evidence could be that Person A is a 10yr old girl who is accusing Person B of molesting her, and the police find a few thousand images and/or videos of thin, small breasted women with shaved pubes on his computer, and that porn is used to prove that he is attracted to prepubescent females which proves that he molested her.) I'm going to assume that you're even more against the standard of "one witness" (which the author is saying is being applied far more often than it should be) than of the "two or three witnesses" standard, so what exactly is your beef with this article?
 
2013-10-12 12:43:52 PM
B-b-b-but why would a child EVER lie about anything like that?
 
2013-10-12 12:46:10 PM

CanisNoir: Techhell: Please point out the premises and inferences used in the article which you disagree with, using quotations from the article itself.

I believe he is saying that regardless of conclusion, if the underlying philosophy a person uses to reach that conclusion is based upon the teachings of Christ or the Jewish religious society, it's wrong. I don't understand these people, and in many ways find them hypocritical because they espouse that a persons actions should not be effected in any way by their spirituality and philosophical beliefs, yet the two can never be disengaged from each other and they themselves base their actions upon their own version of spirituality and philosophical beliefs.

Example: Supporting the passage of a bill because it agrees with your Christian beliefs is bad, but supporting the same bill because it agrees with your Humanistic beliefs is just peachy.

Personally I believe that much of it is left over rebellion against a persons parents traditions which keeps people from seeing the entirety of the Monotheistic religions and their beneficial effect they've had on civilization throughout history. From this perspective it's easy to neglect the fact that human beings are flawed by nature and therefore anything ruled and governed by man will also be flawed. (i.e. Because monotheists throughout history have not acted perfectly within the boundries of their espoused beliefs, the entire establishment is garbage) The most recent and therefore egregious failing being the child molestation being covered up by the Catholic Church; though you'll notice College Football as an institution withstood it's cover up, and Public Schools are still hailed as bastions of goodness despite the almost daily stories of teachers molesting their students.


Wow...
 
2013-10-12 12:47:33 PM

Techhell: quatchi: the "two or three witnesses" standard

Is stupid on a couple of levels.

DNA, fingerprints, footprints, gps info from phones, paper trials and video are all more reliable that eye witnesses.

On the plus side the sucky blog writer has evolved enuff to recognize that killing gay folks for being gay and murdering non virgins who dare to marry are morally abhorrent propositions. So that's nice.

You do realize that the author is talking about cases where the accusation of a SINGLE witness/victim is the basis for the case, right? Where the evidence comes from that witness/victim too? (At best, I'd assume that the evidence could be that Person A is a 10yr old girl who is accusing Person B of molesting her, and the police find a few thousand images and/or videos of thin, small breasted women with shaved pubes on his computer, and that porn is used to prove that he is attracted to prepubescent females which proves that he molested her.) I'm going to assume that you're even more against the standard of "one witness" (which the author is saying is being applied far more often than it should be) than of the "two or three witnesses" standard, so what exactly is your beef with this article?


Was there a point of bringing a "Biblical Standard" into this?
 
2013-10-12 12:55:06 PM
The problem is people are stupid and believe eyewitness testimony or physical evidence even though witness testimony is crap.
 
2013-10-12 12:55:20 PM

CanisNoir: I believe he is saying that regardless of conclusion, if the underlying philosophy a person uses to reach that conclusion is based upon the teachings of Christ or the Jewish religious society, it's wrong. I don't understand these people, and in many ways find them hypocritical because they espouse that a persons actions should not be effected in any way by their spirituality and philosophical beliefs, yet the two can never be disengaged from each other and they themselves base their actions upon their own version of spirituality and philosophical beliefs.


Replace Biblical Standards with Sharia Standards in the same editorial and the author would be shaitting bricks.
 
2013-10-12 01:04:00 PM
I didn't look at the rest of the blog, but is the author even religious? He said in the first paragraph that it's a good thing we don't use Biblical law for a lot of things, and just brought this up as an example.
 
2013-10-12 01:14:02 PM

Fart_Machine: Techhell: quatchi: the "two or three witnesses" standard

Is stupid on a couple of levels.

DNA, fingerprints, footprints, gps info from phones, paper trials and video are all more reliable that eye witnesses.

On the plus side the sucky blog writer has evolved enuff to recognize that killing gay folks for being gay and murdering non virgins who dare to marry are morally abhorrent propositions. So that's nice.

You do realize that the author is talking about cases where the accusation of a SINGLE witness/victim is the basis for the case, right? Where the evidence comes from that witness/victim too? (At best, I'd assume that the evidence could be that Person A is a 10yr old girl who is accusing Person B of molesting her, and the police find a few thousand images and/or videos of thin, small breasted women with shaved pubes on his computer, and that porn is used to prove that he is attracted to prepubescent females which proves that he molested her.) I'm going to assume that you're even more against the standard of "one witness" (which the author is saying is being applied far more often than it should be) than of the "two or three witnesses" standard, so what exactly is your beef with this article?

Was there a point of bringing a "Biblical Standard" into this?


Probably because the author is either religious themselves and knows their audience, or simply knows their audience. He's a Texan talking about the Texan justice system, so if he want to convince Texans in general to support changes to the laws, he's going to have to toss in some Christian references to get them on his side. Or maybe he's a crazy religious nut who's trying to use this as a prybar to get Christian Sharia Law Passed In Jesuses Amurika (FARK YEAH!!!) through the back door. Any way it goes, it's pretty hard to argue that we should accept the accusation of a single witness/victim as an acceptable standard in a western justice system as often as it is.
 
2013-10-12 01:22:14 PM

Techhell: what exactly is your beef with this article?


This...

"A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.

Is stupid.

Evidence > Eye witnesses.

The world has moved on and learned things since those words were written.

The specific case he cites, the   "bullied her into accusing her stepfather" (of sexual abuse) by a social worker at age eight during a three-and-a-half hour interview." case if true does indeed sound like a horror story, however Texas enacting "Senate Bill 12, which will allow prosecutors to introduce evidence against child-sex assault defendants of prior offenses, including accusations by other children." sounds like the law is allowing more eye witnesses to testify than previous law allowed which would be more in line with his biblical reference he's asserting who's  "wisdom still holds true".

He appears to be arguing for more witnesses when in fact he means more evidence.

The case he's using to back up his assertions seems to do the exact opposite by my lights at least.

So once again, stupid.

/Disclaimer, it's relatively early here and I still haven't had any coffee yet so everything I've written above may just be stupid, grumpy, foggy-headed wrongness in print form.
//Feel free to disregard.
///There must and shall be coffee.
 
2013-10-12 01:40:29 PM

Lost Thought 00: abb3w: Techhell: actually reading the farking article... it's rather reasonable.

The conclusion may be rather reasonable; the premises and inferences to reach it? Not so much.

In fact, the method is downright dangerous and usually leads to people being killed.


Techhell: Fart_Machine: Techhell: quatchi: the "two or three witnesses" standard

Is stupid on a couple of levels.

DNA, fingerprints, footprints, gps info from phones, paper trials and video are all more reliable that eye witnesses.

On the plus side the sucky blog writer has evolved enuff to recognize that killing gay folks for being gay and murdering non virgins who dare to marry are morally abhorrent propositions. So that's nice.

You do realize that the author is talking about cases where the accusation of a SINGLE witness/victim is the basis for the case, right? Where the evidence comes from that witness/victim too? (At best, I'd assume that the evidence could be that Person A is a 10yr old girl who is accusing Person B of molesting her, and the police find a few thousand images and/or videos of thin, small breasted women with shaved pubes on his computer, and that porn is used to prove that he is attracted to prepubescent females which proves that he molested her.) I'm going to assume that you're even more against the standard of "one witness" (which the author is saying is being applied far more often than it should be) than of the "two or three witnesses" standard, so what exactly is your beef with this article?

Was there a point of bringing a "Biblical Standard" into this?

Probably because the author is either religious themselves and knows their audience, or simply knows their audience. He's a Texan talking about the Texan justice system, so if he want to convince Texans in general to support changes to the laws, he's going to have to toss in some Christian references to get them on his side. Or maybe he's a crazy religious nut who's trying to use this as a prybar to get Christian Sharia Law Passed In Jesuses Amurika (FARK YEAH!!!) through the back door. Any way it goes, it's pretty hard to argue that we should accept the accusation of a single witness/victim as an acceptable standard in a western justice system as often as it is.


Funny thing is, this wouldn't be "Christian Sharia Law" it would be "Jewish Sharia Law".  The passage cited is from the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 17:

 (  6On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.  7The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting that person to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you. )

Now, I think the principle is good (2 or 3 witnesses), but to me it is common sense, not a "Bible" or "Torah" thing.  This is one of the cases where an old document is reflecting (and codifying) common wisdom.  The source isn't the Bible; the source is common sense.
 
2013-10-12 02:06:26 PM
 I understand the need to ensure that justice is done for the wrongfully accused, but to go to a 2 or more eyewitness standard for all crimes is just ridiculous. I suppose if you truly believe it's better for a 1000 guilty men to go free than to wrongly convict one innocent man, this idea would appeal to you.  Criminals are not always stupid enough to do their deeds with an audience and many, many crimes are not going to have more than one eyewitness: the victim. And for sex crimes this is going to be even more true.  We should not allow true victims of rape and molestation go without justice simply because the perp was smart enough make sure the victim was completely alone when they attack.
 
2013-10-12 03:05:09 PM
We should be more like Italy. Arresting scientists for not predicting earthquakes right and bringing Satanistic rituals and orgies into a murder case that have no evidence of such.
 
2013-10-12 03:14:16 PM

RyogaM: I understand the need to ensure that justice is done for the wrongfully accused, but to go to a 2 or more eyewitness standard for all crimes is just ridiculous. I suppose if you truly believe it's better for a 1000 guilty men to go free than to wrongly convict one innocent man, this idea would appeal to you.  Criminals are not always stupid enough to do their deeds with an audience and many, many crimes are not going to have more than one eyewitness: the victim. And for sex crimes this is going to be even more true.  We should not allow true victims of rape and molestation go without justice simply because the perp was smart enough make sure the victim was completely alone when they attack.


The best case scenario is unbiased evidence-video, audio, DNA, something like that. In the case of many sex crimes, this is not always possible, but if it is, I would always accept that over witnesses.
 
2013-10-12 04:34:41 PM

Techhell: After actually reading the farking article... it's rather reasonable.


Counterpoint: forensic evidence.

Second counterpoint: the vast majority of crimes have only two direct witnesses, and one of them is  the criminal.  This is because that's a  really bloody obvious element of the plan in any premeditated crime.

TFA's proposed rule hasn't been a rule in western law, even Church law, for over 1500 years for a damned reason, and that reason is that the three-witness requirement is pants-on-head retarded.
 
2013-10-12 04:40:18 PM
That sounds oddly reasonable for a Fark greenlight.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report