Rocag said:

---

You've done no such thing and apparently can't do so. There is literally no one in this thread agreeing with you and multiple people pointing out how you've failed to make your point.

Yup, done here.

---

How do you feel about my primary/secondary sources now?

Appreciate it.

Aggrad08 is exactly right. I feel like you've claimed a shape is a triangle and when I ask you to show why that is true you've spent a dozen posts talking about its color. OK, but irrelevant for the discussion at hand. Which is exactly why I haven't bothered responding.

Ultimately, the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" isn't really a religious idea at all and is only relevant when setting up civil judicial structures. In religion, it's presumed that the judge and jury (God) already knows the truth of the matter and doesn't have to make such assumptions. Even rules on which evidence is admissible and which isn't don't directly speak to the issue of whether the court assumes innocence or guilt.

As an example, imagine a person is accused of crime. They have one witness that provides an alibi for that person. But religious law says you need two witnesses for that testimony to be admissible. So it's kicked out. That still says nothing about where the burden of proof lies. Does the accused have to prove his innocence or does the court have to prove his guilt?

Rocag said:

---

Aggrad08 is exactly right. I feel like you've claimed a shape is a triangle and when I ask you to show why that is true you've spent a dozen posts talking about its color. OK, but irrelevant for the discussion at hand. Which is exactly why I haven't bothered responding.

Ultimately, the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" isn't really a religious idea at all and is only relevant when setting up civil judicial structures. In religion, it's presumed that the judge and jury (God) already knows the truth of the matter and doesn't have to make such assumptions. Even rules on which evidence is admissible and which isn't don't directly speak to the issue of whether the court assumes innocence or guilt.

As an example, imagine a person is accused of crime. They have one witness that provides an alibi for that person. But religious law says you need two witnesses for that testimony to be admissible. So it's kicked out. That still says nothing about where the burden of proof lies. Does the accused have to prove his innocence or does the court have to prove his guilt?

---

Much appreciated. We disagree on who invented the concept and how it developed in the West. But thanks a whole bunch for the conversation.

Baptist Catechism of 1693…




Thomas Watson 1620-1686

{When Job's life was in turmoil, his friends assumed he had done wrong and was being divinely punished. Many allegations were made against his character, though each was incorrect. The book ends with God chastising Job's friends for their rush to judgment.

Even as wild allegations were made against Jesus, the legal expert Nicodemus spoke: "Does our law condemn anyone without first hearing him to find out what he is doing (John 7:51)?"}

Presumption of innocence is one thing, evidence is another and also important to God. When Israel was a new nation, learning how to pursue its own course after years of slavery, Moses instructed them in the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy.


https://drjimmann.com/2018/10/04/bible-even-points-to-idea-of-innocent-until-proven-guilty/

"There is no virtue in human courts punishing one who is probably guilty or is suspected of being guilty of a particular crime. The phrase, "innocent until proven guilty," is not just a good rule of justice. It is Biblical. If evidence cannot be presented to prove one's guilt, man's judgments should err on the side of caution. If it happens that the guilty goes unpunished for lack of proof in human courts, God will deal with him appropriately in the end (2 Corinthians 5:10; Hebrews 4:13)."

https://plainbibleteaching.com/2012/02/25/innocent-until-proven-guilty/

I wouldn't be surprised if you could make an argument that the idea of innocent until proven guilty is supported by the Bible. I also wouldn't be surprised if you could make the argument that the Bible argues against it as well. But to be clear, this discussion isn't about the Bible as a whole. It is about your claim that the 9th Commandment requires an assumption of innocent until proven guilty.

Presumption of Innocence

DAVE MILLER, Ph.D.
AMERICA'S CULTURE WAR
BULLETIN ARTICLES
IN THE NEWS
MORALITY
Modern American politics has become increasingly characterized by "dirty tricks" and smear tactics that are intended to torpedo a candidate's election potential. These days the usual accusation pertains to sexual matters"unwanted sexual advances" and the like. One cannot help but be skeptical of such allegations since the accusers fixate on sexual mattersnot other criminal behaviors. On the one hand, there are politicians whose checkered pasts deserve to be brought to light due to relevant reflection on suitability for office. On the other hand, political opponents seek to discredit an otherwise innocent and qualified candidatenot merely digging up legitimate concerns from his past, but fabricating charges and "evidence" for no other reason than they disagree with his views (e.g., on abortion). Regardless of one's political affiliation, such circumstances ought to be distasteful.
More troubling than even these tactics is the seemingly widespread acceptance of the idea that a mere accusation constitutes adequate proof of guilt. The longstanding, bedrock adage of "innocent until proven guilty" has fallen by the wayside in the minds of many. Many individuals appear so deluded by their political and moral ideology that they have literally come to redefine the meaning and nature of "justice," "fairness," and "impartiality." They have jettisoned any sense of what it means to be dispassionate, emotionless, and evenhanded in assessing truth. Indeed, if an accusation is accompanied by the presence of tears, the accusation becomes more credible and the likelihood of its veracity becomes certain. Tears carry more weight than truth. "Due process" is defined as giving a hearing to the accusation and then accepting it at face value as true.
The concept of "presumed innocent until proven guilty"1 is inherent in just law and self-evidently true. The accuser has the obligation to prove the accusation beyond a reasonable doubt. In the 1895 U.S. Supreme Court case Coffin vs. United States, writing the opinion of the Court, Justice White included the following observation:
Ammianus Marcellinus relates an anecdote of the Emperor Julian which illustrates the enforcement of this principle in the Roman law. Numerius, the Governor of Narbonensis, was on trial before the emperor, and, contrary to the usage in criminal cases, the trial was public. Numerius contented himself with denying his guilt, and there was not sufficient proof against him. His adversary, Delphidius, "a passionate man," seeing that the failure of the accusation was inevitable, could not restrain himself, and exclaimed, "Oh, illustrious Caesar, if it is sufficient to deny, what hereafter will become of the guilty?" to which Julian replied, "If it suffices to accuse, what will become of the innocent?"2
The American Founders agreed with this assessment of the presumption of innocence and often quoted the highly respected English jurist William Blackstone on the matter: "all presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously, for the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."3
Apart from the legal system that has characterized American civilization from the beginning, the Bible speaks definitively regarding presumption of innocence. Indeed, the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" is inherent in the nature of God. Giving credence to an accusation without proof is evidence of blind prejudice and irrational human emotion rather than logic and reason. One wonders if those women who are quick to believe an unsubstantiated accusation made against a public official would react the same way if their own teenage sons were the recipients of similar allegations.
The bedrock truth that undergirded God's law for Israel regarding criminal behavior centered on the presence of multiple witnesses:
Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses; but one witness is not sufficient testimony against a person for the death penalty (Numbers 35:30).
Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness (Deuteronomy 17:6).
These verses are adamant in their insistence that no one should be convicted on the basis of a single witness. This principle is carried over into church law in the New Testament (Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19; Hebrews 10:28; Revelation 11:3; Cf. Matthew 26:60; John 5:31; 10:37).
It is important to understand that the minimum two witnesses did not refer to a single witness who passes along his observations to another individual who then acts as a second witness. Rather, these verses require two or more independent witnesses, i.e., they were personal eye-witnesses to the alleged event. Nor do these verses justify bringing forward multiple witnesses to separate incidents ("me too"). The fact that a bank robber robs three separate banks on different occasions does not qualify a single witness from each bank robbery to serve as the "two or more witnesses." There must be two or more eyewitnesses to the same event. God was so adamant on this point that He prescribed harsh penalties for violations of it:
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. If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, then both men in the controversy shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days. And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother, then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you. And those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you (Deuteronomy 19:15-20).
One wonders if this legislation were in effect in America today, would we have so many accusers speaking out without adequate evidence. Indeed, God declared: "Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked" (Exodus 23:7).
Under the Law of Moses, a woman subjected to sexual assault was under obligation to scream so that she could be rescued by those nearby. Otherwise, she was a consensual participant. The only exception to this requirement was if the sexual assault occurred in a secluded place (outside of town) where no witnesses or rescuers were available or able to come to her aid (Deuteronomy 22:22-27).
Also under the Old Law, Cities of Refuge were established to facilitate a person's avoiding vengeance implemented by the kinfolk of the person he may have killed. He was permitted to flee to the city where he would be protected until guilt or innocence could be established. Hence, he was innocent until proven guilty. If he was assumed guilty at the outset, there would have been no reason to provide a city of refuge to determine otherwise.
Observe that with the advancement of scientific criminology, specifically the discoveries pertaining to DNA evidence, many convicted individuals have been exonerated. Oftentimes, they were originally convicted solely on the testimony of a single witnessa circumstance that violates God's directives for ascertaining guilt. If God's thinking had been employed, the innocent individual never would have been convicted in the first place.
But these principles imply that those guilty of heinous crimes will occasionally, perhaps even often, be allowed to go free. Nevertheless, in God's sight, accusing and convicting an innocent person is a great miscarriage of justice. Recall the words of Blackstone and Emperor Caesar Julian: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"; "If it suffices to accuse, what will become of the innocent?"
ENDNOTES

1 A phrase attributed to English barrister, politician, and judge William Garrow. See Kenneth Pennington (2003), "Innocent Until Proven Guilty: The Origins of a Legal Maxim," The Jurist: Studies in Church Law and Ministry, 106[63]; Richard Braby and John Hostettler (2010), Sir William Garrow: His Life, His Times and Fight for Justice (Loddon, England: Waterside Press); Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/156/432/. The court stated: "A charge that there cannot be a conviction unless the proof shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt does not so entirely embody the statement of presumption of innocence as to justify the court in refusing, when requested, to instruct the jury concerning such presumption, which is a conclusion drawn by the law in favor of the citizen by virtue whereof, when brought to trial upon a criminal charge, he must be acquitted unless he is proven to be guilty."
2 Ibid., emp. added.
3 Sir William Blackstone (1893), Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books (Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott), IV.XXVII.V.


https://apologeticspress.org/presumption-of-innocence-5622/

And the only way innocent until proven guilty appeared is because of its Christian culture of the times.

These rights are endowed upon us only because it was self-evident to its Judeo-Christian context.

Rocag said:

---

I wouldn't be surprised if you could make an argument that the idea of innocent until proven guilty is supported by the Bible. I also wouldn't be surprised if you could make the argument that the Bible argues against it as well. But to be clear, this discussion isn't about the Bible as a whole. It is about your claim that the 9th Commandment requires an assumption of innocent until proven guilty.

---

No sir. You really can't argue that the Bible supports both.
The Bible supports upholding the good name of people.
The Bible doesn't support guilty until proven innocent. The Bible requires two eye witnesses.




For it is because of the 9th commandment that the judicial system itself is, in theory, bound to the commandment as well.