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 (1 year 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
 
2013-10-12 05:03:50 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Because having a godly court means that false convictions would never happen.

[nanquick.files.wordpress.com image 640x444]
[globetribune.info image 500x377]


Ideally, false convictions would at least be. . . unexpected.


www.midwesttvguy.com
 
2013-10-12 06:27:38 PM  

Techhell: 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.


The one that says more witnesses would be better or something. (Hard to parse through that tangled grammar) Witnesses are no more reliable than confessions, in many cases; and even lab evidence is not guaranteed.

Just because "the Bible says" witnesses are good, doesn't make it true.
 
2013-10-12 06:55:51 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Techhell: 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.

The one that says more witnesses would be better or something. (Hard to parse through that tangled grammar) Witnesses are no more reliable than confessions, in many cases; and even lab evidence is not guaranteed.

Just because "the Bible says" witnesses are good, doesn't make it true.


So you disagree that having more than one witness is better? You're okay with trials that are almost literally the testimony of Person A against Person B? And you're also okay with trials that involve things like a pre-teen girl saying her step father washed her vagina with a wash cloth full of broken glass when there is no evidence that it happened... and the stepfather is convicted?

That's what the author is arguing against. He's pointing out a part of the bible that requires multiple witnesses and is saying that there is wisdom in that. What is your disagreement with that?
 
2013-10-12 07:19:18 PM  
having witnesses is not the same as being able to confront or see or know the witnesses.
during the Inquisition it was thought important to have a least two witnesses to heresy, but one was OK, and by witness someone signing the bottom of a list of names was good enough to be a witness, after all would a Christian ever lie?  that false witness commandment and all.
Lies were justified because it was going to save souls!  Many Christian philosophers thought it was justified that innocent people might die because they would go to heaven.  Calvin and many others felt that anyone who was arrested deserved to be arrested as God brought them to the point where it was important and needful that they be convicted.  Being in Prison was good for their souls and salvation!  Our modern Right Wing Christians also believe that being imprisoned, tortured, forced to work while in prison, slave wages, bad conditions and such are good because it brings profits to those favored by their God and helps those less in favor become closer to salvation.

Good times!
 
2013-10-12 07:57:52 PM  
I thought we weren't allow to base anything in the justice system on religious law of foreign origin?
 
2013-10-12 10:28:30 PM  

Techhell: That's what the author is arguing against. He's pointing out a part of the bible that requires multiple witnesses and is saying that there is wisdom in that. What is your disagreement with that?


There's some resentment towards picking and choosing what parts of the Bible to follow.  Most of the people who do that tend to be horrible people who only pick the parts that go along with their existing douchebaggery.
 
2013-10-13 01:22:53 AM  
Is this blogger saying that a single, uncorroborated accusation results in convictions very often?  Does it ever happen?  No corroboration, not DNA, fingerprints, video, bank records, nothing?  Just one person saying "He done it" is enough to convict?  Really?
 
2013-10-13 01:38:51 AM  

Techhell: Gyrfalcon: Techhell: 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.

The one that says more witnesses would be better or something. (Hard to parse through that tangled grammar) Witnesses are no more reliable than confessions, in many cases; and even lab evidence is not guaranteed.

Just because "the Bible says" witnesses are good, doesn't make it true.

So you disagree that having more than one witness is better? You're okay with trials that are almost literally the testimony of Person A against Person B? And you're also okay with trials that involve things like a pre-teen girl saying her step father washed her vagina with a wash cloth full of broken glass when there is no evidence that it happened... and the stepfather is convicted?

That's what the author is arguing against. He's pointing out a part of the bible that requires multiple witnesses and is saying that there is wisdom in that. What is your disagreement with that?


The author seems to have cherry-picked a case in which a child lied and used it to argue that no child should EVER be trusted when the child is the only witness to abuse.  People very rarely abuse children in front of other witnesses.  Does this mean we should let them walk?

/Sure, there's wisdom in having other witnesses.
//But that shouldn't make all cases with only one witness invalid.
 
Displayed 8 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