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...
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.
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now