You stated and then asked:
To which I responded:
You then said:
So what context am I not recognizing when I challenged you on your answer, which was a denial that they had evidence, testimony, reason, and logic, by saying:
How are you not trolling or just plain stupid?
I can read just fine, thank you.
You're the one denying that ancient Israelites had evidence, testimony, reason, and logic, are you not?
So you're retracting your denial then?
Why does that make any difference to how many witnesses are needed to establish a matter?
You haven't even begun to explain why advancements in forensics should mean that we replace the standard of evidence needed for convictions.
What I insist upon is that we adhere to the standard given by God for the number of witnesses needed to determine guilt or innocence, because His standard is good. Trying to improve upon it is evil, aside from being unnecessary.
Please quote anyone in this thread saying we shouldn't use modern techniques. Oh wait, you can't, because no one has.
God says that a matter is established based on two or three witnesses.
Why do you need "absolute guilt," when God says "two or three witnesses" is enough?
Yay, he can read!
Now compare it to what we were citing it in response.
No, current legal processes comb through evidence with utmost stringency. They simply cannot, due to the sheer number of cases that are continually being added to the docket.
They simply don't have the time to get to all of them, because of how many there are. And that's caused by, among other things, lack of appropriate punishments for criminals (lack of deterrent), and too high of a standard for evidence ("beyond reasonable doubt").
"To see the values ‘courtesy, professionalism and respect’ on every police car is an insult to my experience.”
That's obvious... Even if you wanted to be, you aren't qualified to be a judge. You don't know the difference between right and wrong.
Judges would be volunteers. Not forced.
Again: Your solution to that is to have multiple fallible human beings determine their guilt?
How does that solve the problem of "fallible human beings"?
If your argument is that "there are fallible human beings as part of the system," then adding more won't solve that problem. And removing the position of a single judge only furthers the idea that you want to see criminals such as murderers and rapists go free and unpunished, which you keep trying to deny, but your argument keeps affirming.
I wonder how many cases there are where a suspect is let go because of "substantial evidence" who then later gets caught committing the same crime he was originally on trial for... Or for how many prisoners there are who are released and commit the same or worse crime...
If a person is convicted, based on the testimony of two or three witnesses, where a thorough examination of the evidence is made by a judge, of having committed a capital crime, and is sentenced to death, why is that not enough for you, Arthur?
Regardless of the methods used, the kind of evidence gathered, even if it's not all direct evidence, as long as there's enough evidence, and no evidence to the contrary was found, if a judge determines, based on the evidence, using logic and reason, and examining witnesses (not necessarily eyewitnesses), that someone committed a crime, why do you argue that such is insufficient for a conviction?
And if the judge did his due diligence, then so what? He made a decision, based on the evidence, which showed the suspect to be guilty. Why isn't that sufficient?
If evidence is found later on, then you investigate to see whether the judge made an error, and if he did not, then the judgement he made was valid, even if it was wrong.
Do you think God will not show even some mercy to the one put to death wrongly?
Should the woman who was raped have to suffer the taunting of her attacker in court, simply because you think the case might someday be overturned?
Oh, and what about the one who overturns such a case, do you not consider him to be a fallible human being? What if he's overturning the case wrongly?
Why worry about any of it to begin with, when God doesn't require or expect us to try to make such calculations, but instead would rather we put the convicted rapist to death based on the testimony of two or three witnesses?
Yes, and? No one is saying to do otherwise.
Again, that's what the "two OR three" part is about.
Weighing the evidence is part of the judge's duty.
Right, but the initial presentation of [security footage] is not "indisputable," as I demonstrated.
And if the footage is shown to be original, undoctored, then it becomes strong evidence that the person had committed the crime.
But it still is not "absolute, indisputable evidence," for a dispute could still be made by the suspect, that the person shown is just a lookalike.
Do you see the point, yet?
Your standard for conviction is "absolute proof."
If such a standard cannot be met, then what do you suggest we do with the accused. Your standard for conviction isn't met, and so no conviction can be made. What then?
I'm not even asking you to consider the question under my preferred system. I'm just asking you to consider whether you would be motivated to investigate the accusation to the best of your ability if you were the sole decider of whether someone is put to death or set free.
So you would lock someone up, and prevent them from going about their life? For how long? Days? Weeks? Months? Years? Decades? At what point do you stop looking for evidence and either punish the man who is accused of raping a woman, or release him?
Do you not see the problem?
The woman has presented evidence that she was raped, and you want to lock the person up and take a "wait and see" stance, because there might be evidence that he's not guilty.... just around the corner?
How is that justice?
Answer: It's not. It's cruel to both the woman and the accused. It's cruel to the woman, because she has to wait for closure on a traumatic experience, and it's cruel to the accused because he's not really being punished, only locked up like an animal in a cage, being fed, medicated, entertained, etc... on whose funding?