Saturday, August 21, 2004
Do right, not well
The votes of the Sanhedrin were oral rather than by secret ballot. The question arises, suppose that seventy judges vote ''guilty,'' and the seventy-first judge happens to feel that the defendant was not guilty. If he casts a ''guilty'' vote, then the rule that a unanimous guilty verdict results in acquittal will apply, and his opinion that the defendant is not guilty will be implemented. However, if he votes ''not guilty,'' then there is no unanimous vote of ''guilty,'' and the verdict will be that of the majority: guilty. Should this last judge, therefore, vote ''guilty'' in order to achieve the acquittal that he believes to be just?
The Ohr HaChaim says that the last judge must vote his opinion of ''not guilty,'' even though that will result in the opposite of what he believes to be just. Why? Because a person is obligated to speak the truth as he sees it, rather than consider the result.
According to Torah ethics, the process must be righteous, because it is the process that lies in human hands. Results are up to G-d.
Ever heard the expression deciding the sentence then finding the verdict?
Yeah. Bad idea.
The Ohr HaChaim says that the last judge must vote his opinion of ''not guilty,'' even though that will result in the opposite of what he believes to be just. Why? Because a person is obligated to speak the truth as he sees it, rather than consider the result.
According to Torah ethics, the process must be righteous, because it is the process that lies in human hands. Results are up to G-d.
Ever heard the expression deciding the sentence then finding the verdict?
Yeah. Bad idea.
