The escalated investigation of criminal technique has been an interesting journey. There are components of the subject that I had never considered or assessed. Notwithstanding, a significant number of the subjects displayed, incorporating those said in this specific task, had been expressed in a general sense in any event in different classes that I had finished. Something that has been to a great degree vital to a proper training is the examination of the equity framework in light of the reality of the Bible. Critical zones that can be assessed in light of the Bible are witness strategies, interrogation, and physical proof.
The contrasts between witness strategies as examined in US and state criminal law and the witness technique talked about in the Bible are clear. Some of these distinctions are as an aftereffect of various times and periods ever. In the realm of today, there can be distinctive requests on the nature of the witness’ declaration than those said in the Bible. With the entry of video observation and other mechanical advances, there has been an ascent in such things as conditional proof, which did not have a critical place in Biblical courts and most unquestionably could not convict somebody of wrongdoing. The rise of feelings in light of conditional proof is not something that I bolster. The Biblical rationality, while being extremely unforgiving toward affirmed wrongdoers, indicates largely a sympathy toward letting blameworthy goes free as opposed to risking rebuffing a guiltless. Furthermore, since God had a place in the court, the guilty were given the affirmation that, if they went free in this life, their wrongdoings would be rebuffed in the following. While such a center is not practical in our existing equity framework, there can at present be a more noteworthy concentrate on the guiltless. Accommodating assurance for the guiltless while yet having a sound judgment with so many things as the exclusionary manage would be a stage in the right bearing.
In any association with witnesses, a round of questioning undoubtedly can be tended to. This is a region where our criminal techniques tend to reverberate Biblical standards. Round of questioning is said in the Bible, as is appeared by Proverbs 18:17. I would not prescribe an expansive move in any round of questioning techniques on a fundamental level. Wheatcroft and Ellison (2012) call attention to that most in the equity framework see a round of questioning as critical to looking at the witness’ story (p. 823). This assessment echoes that of the Bible. A key distinction, nonetheless, is in how our equity framework manages prevarication and how the Bible maintains to lie. The capital framework records lie as a different offense, while the Bible says that a witness that submits prevarication ought to be given the discipline that would have been given to the individual he or she lied about. I would then suggest this would be followed in our equity framework, as it would be a successful obstacle to lying on the testimony box.
At last, the path in which the Bible treats proof is altogether different from that of our equity framework. The Bible underscores a man’s assertion above most instances of the prerequisite of physical confirmation. For example, in Deuteronomy 21:18-21, a man and his better half can have their child stoned only on the heaviness of their statement. I propose that this distinction comes because of a difference in primary culture and regard for other individuals; in that society, there existed a higher respect for a man’s guarantee. In our day and age, a man’s oath essentially is not sufficiently dependable for individuals to give it so much weight. While this distinction exists, I do not hold that the equity framework’s present convention ought to change. The disastrous actuality is that individuals lie and cannot be trusted to come clean. In a culture where a man’s statement showed how much his life was worth, there was no requirement for uncertainty; a lie would mean demise. This is not the situation in American culture today.
There are contrasts, numerous reasonably substantial, between Biblical techniques and those of our criminal equity framework today. Some of these distinctions are an aftereffect of our fallen society. Others result in the premature labor of capital. All, nevertheless, are vital to inspect and break down. We should check and be straightforward and open before the reality of the Bible.
References
- Wheatcroft, Jacqueline M. and Louise E. Ellison. “Evidence In Court: Witness Preparation And Cross-Examination Style Effects On Adult Witness Accuracy.” Behavioral Sciences & the Law 30.6 (2012): 821-840. Web.
