Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Steve Black <sblack AT axionet.com>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence
  • Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:44:37 -0700


I have been following this thread with a degree of interest. (I haven't read every post exhaustively - lack of time - I say this as an apology if I am being redundant with something already said).

I think the forensic model might have something to offer NT studies - but I think that Eric may be risking this contribution by overstating its value.

Firstly I have problems with the casual reference to a "scientific method" - which seems to me to act as a trump card - an unfortunately undefined trump card. What is meant by this term? The scientific method means different things in different fields. Talk to a geologist and then to an anthropologist and one will get very different (yet equally valid) ideas of what is meant by the term.

Secondly - I am not sure the judicial system is truly "scientific". Certainly it has a scientific component - but it is interesting that the system does NOT let the practitioners with technical expertise make any of the final decisions regarding innocence or guilt.

Thirdly - It seems to me that the genius of the judicial system is that it not only takes into account a lack of objectivity but in fact DEMANDS a lack of objectivity. (This goes back to point two - how "scientific" could such a process really claim to be?) One thing missing in your model Eric is the various roles that the modern judicial system sees as being crucial for justice. Your model seems to collapse all the various roles into one - making the "expert" witness both prosecutor, defense , judge, and jury. The defense and the prosecutor both seek to use the rules of evidence in their favor - in fact the system requires that they do so - imagine a defense attorney providing a shabby defense because they believed their client didn't deserve a good one. It is the judge who decides if the rules are being applied or not. In many situations it is not even the judge who decides the case - but 12 regular folk - or peers. It is obvious that the judge cannot ALSO be either a defense or prosecuting attorney! That simply would not work. In short one person cannot fill all the roles and have the system work. There are at least two different stories being presented (the defense's and the prosecution's) and which is more *plausible* is not decided by either of the "story tellers" - in fact any one BUT them. Finally, a jury's decision is hardly "scientific" - it is made no more so by the contribution of expert witnesses.



Now within the scientific community a similar yet distinct process occurs. The court room is often scientific journals and the judge and jury are other scientists - peers.

Funny, come to think of it, the same thing happens in biblical studies...

--
Steve Black
Vancouver School of Theology
Vancouver, BC
---

Once in a while you can get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right...

-Robert Hunter From SCARLET BEGONIAS




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page