[Image: Twisting In The Wind, 2004, JA Van Devender]
Deuteronomy 19:15 (NKJV)
15 “One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.
The current cause celebre continues to feed the insatiable demands of both the pundits and opportunistic politicians. Nothing delights those bed-fellows more than outrage. It sells so easily.
The Martin/Zimmerman tragedy (see previous post) is spinning through its third act. People are on the streets protesting and Eric Holder, amplifying earlier remarks by President O'Bama, is calling for review and (presumably) Federal challenge of the "Stand Your Ground" laws [ see HERE] passed, in various forms, by 24 states.
Holder's premise, shared by many, is that in cases where a weapon, especially a gun, is used in "self-defense" that the burden of proof must shift to the defendent to prove that he or she did not avail themselves of means of escape (with some caveats allowed such as being in one's home) when life or serious bodily harm is threatened. Such a position I think demonstrates just how far we have come, as a society, in losing sight of the fundamentals of true justice and legal recourse.
At issue here is not really the specific instance of "Stand Your Ground." What is really being debated, whether recognized or not, is the idea of "reasonable doubt" and who has the responsibility of meeting that criterion.
Holder and others would not be pushing for a "re-examination" of laws such as "Stand Your Ground" if the Zimmerman trial jurors had found him guilty of manslaughter or murder. In that specific case the "not guilty" verdict did not actually address the "Stand Your Ground" issue... it hinged on the fact that there was not sufficient evidence to establish "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense as it is understood in any Federal or State jurisdiction in the United States and therefore he was declared "not guilty". Though some states, unconstitutionally in my mind, would not have legally allowed him to carry a concealed weapon at all yet the right to take whatever steps are necessary and available to protect one's own life and body, is recognized by all states. Even Maryland, whose gun laws are among the most stringent in the nation, does not deny that a person's actions in self-defense, in proportion to the threat, does not constitute a crime.
Therefore, in cases where self-defense is being claimed, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person was not justified in that claim or that self-defense was not actually the motive. That's a very high standard to attain when there are no other witnesses to the act and the two parties had not previously known each other.
A person against whom a prosecutor fails to establish this level of evidence is not guilty of the crime. ... period... at least as far as legal status is concerned.
The Scriptures are very clear in this regard. Theoretically, if a person claimed self-defense in inflicting wounds on another person but short of deadly effect, then that person might actually testify in the trial. It would then be a case of one party's word against the other. Barring other external evidence of a compelling nature (establishing prior intent, motive, etc.) that would not rise to the level of "reasonable doubt." It takes two or three witnesses to establish such a warrant for criminal prosecution.
I think, as a nation, we need to be very cautious about where these current demonstrations and the politicians' responses to them are headed. It was not too long ago that a denunciation of a person for "witch-craft" could lead to deadly consequences for the accused. Often these denunciations were based on hysterical or malicious grounds and reflected more of an emotional reflex than reasoned incentives. Tyrannies, past and modern, rely on "accusers" who prey on the prejudices and paranoia of those in power to condemn and persecute others based solely on their own word. When some pigs are more important than others then the outcome of trials depend more on who is speaking than what is being proved. God, in establishing the "two or three witnesses" rule, recognizes the perversity that dwells in human hearts. His own Son was the object of false testimony by witnesses recruited for this very end. It is interesting that in the Jewish court that met to decide His fate, it was found that none of these witnesses ever agreed with each other sufficiently to establish His guilt. Even the hypocritical Sanhedrin had to abide by the "reasonable doubt" criterion. This rule is essential to any hope of justice in any social order and it must be diligently protected by those of us who still have hope for some return to common sense in our dealings with such things.
In this current conversation, as Christian citizens in this country, we must diligently seek to clarify the issues. "Stand Your Ground" laws, unless the burden of proof shifts, in whatever form they take, will ultimately be subject to the same criterion: is it established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person not only should have, but must have, used some other way to remove themselves from danger. Since that will come down to having eye-witnesses or other corroborating evidence to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that such was the case then the grounds for criminal charges will not be any different. As long as the burden of proof rests on the prosecutor, the person must be declared "innocent."
So, what is really at stake here is the shifting of the burden of proof. If the burden is not shifted to the accused, as I have demonstrated above, the prosecutor cannot convict. Therefore, what is being sought in the current initiatives directed at SYG is to require that the defendant demonstrate that he had no other alternatives to his use of force in self-defense. This would have devastating effects far beyond the SYG issue.
See the "Slate" article below for explicit statement of the opposing position.
Comments