How the Bible Should Teach the Courts

Witnesses, Cross Examination, Physical Evidence
1
The scriptures confirmed my views about how criminal procedure should operate according to each topic. Deuteronomy is clear about needing more than one witness, which aligns with common sense. To prevent a “he said, she said” type of argument in court, it is necessary that there be other supporting witnesses. However, as Loftus (1980) has shown, even eyewitness testimony can be unreliable for a number of psychological reasons; and witnesses can also engage in conspiracy, so relying solely on witness testimony should not be considered full-proof. Of course, Deuteronomy 19:21 also offers a way for courts to deal with false witnesses: “Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” Cross examination must occur so that judges can get to the truth of the matter and discern whether witnesses are being honest or are using deceit to try to fool the court; and, in cases where a wrong has been committed, restitution must be made, as Scripture holds—and the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth doctrine is indicated according to the Old Testament. However, the New Testament offers a more merciful approach: Matthew 5:38-40 states, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.” This suggests that Christians should avoid the courts altogether by always demonstrating charity.
2
Our current system has many rules about witnesses, cross examination and physical evidence. Due process in the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that people have a right to confront their witnesses/accusers. However, the right to access physical evidence is not always upheld in every state, as in some cases there is no right to access DNA evidence (Liptak, 2009), which goes against both Scripture and the Constitution. As for cross examination, having access to physical evidence like DNA would be of assistance in cross examination as it would be part of what the judges are advised to do in Deuteronomy 19:19-20 when they are told “make a thorough investigation.” Our court system is somewhat still biased in terms of not allowing all the rights of the accused to be thoroughly upheld.
3
Our current system could change to deal with how we treat witnesses, the topic of cross examination and physical evidence in a radical way by shifting from an Old Testament perspective to a New Testament perspective. There is indeed a radical separation between the two: the Old Testament is very focused on providing a legal framework for administering justice. The New Testament is very focused on providing a spiritual framework for administering charity. As Matthew states, echoing the sentiment of Christ, the teaching of an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth does not align with the doctrines of Christ. Therefore, in a Christian society, the question must be asked as to the extent that a court system should really be in place at all. If Christians are taught to go the extra mile, it would preclude that a Christian society would demonstrate less reliance on a court system and more reliance on a system of neighborly charity. 1 Corinthians 6:7 states, “Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another.  Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated?” How does this fit in with today’s concept of law? It does not.
References
Liptak, A. (2009). Justices reject inmate right to DNA tests. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/us/19scotus.html
Loftus, E. F. (1980). Impact of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of
eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(1), 9.