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 16
    More: Interesting, miscarriage of justice, country legal systems, criminal justice system  
•       •       •

1904 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-10-12 11:38:26 AM  
4 votes:
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 02:06:26 PM  
2 votes:
 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 10:52:51 AM  
2 votes:

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 09:51:56 AM  
2 votes:
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 01:40:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:55:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:15:02 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:30:43 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:27:12 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:27:02 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:19:25 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:08:50 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:59:48 AM  
1 votes:
So, what I'm getting out of this is, if you commit a crime, make sure to kill all the witnesses.
2013-10-12 10:56:58 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:56:42 AM  
1 votes:
img1.fark.net

Therefore DNRTFA

/your blog sucks
//your blog ALWAYS sucks
2013-10-12 09:41:38 AM  
1 votes:
And another Constitutional expert is loose again....

Let's just stick to:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..."
 
Displayed 16 of 16 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report