"Not only is self-condemnation never extorted from the defendant by
means of torture, but no attempt is ever made to lead him on to
self-incrimination. Moreover, a voluntary confession on his part
is not admitted in evidence, and therefore not competent to
convict him, unless a legal number of witnesses minutely
corroborate his self-accusation."--MENDELSOHN, "Criminal
Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews," p. 133.
FACT AND ARGUMENT
MORE than one system of jurisprudence has refused to permit a conviction
for crime to rest upon an uncorroborated confession. But it remained for
the ancient Hebrews to discover the peculiar reason for the rule, that
the witness who confessed was "his own relative"; and relatives were not
competent witnesses under Hebrew law. Modern Jewish writers, however,
have assigned other reasons for the rule. Rabbi Wise says:
"Self-accusation in cases of capital crime was worthless. For if not
guilty he accuses himself of a falsehood; if guilty he is a wicked man,
and no wicked man, according to Hebrew law, is permitted to testify,
especially not in penal cases."[270] Mendelsohn says that "the reason
assigned for this enactment is the wish to avoid the possibility of
permitting judicial homicide on self-accusing lunatics, or on persons
who, in desperation, wish to cut short their earthly existence, and to
effect this falsely accuse themselves of some capital crime."[271]
Modern jurists have assigned still other reasons for the rule as it has
existed in modern law.[272] Men have been known to confess that they
were guilty of one crime to avoid punishment for another. Morbid and
vulgar sentimentality, such as love of newspaper notoriety, have induced
persons of inferior intelligence, who were innocent, to assume
responsibility for criminal acts.
But whatever the reason of the rule, Jesus was condemned to death upon
His uncorroborated confession, in violation of Hebrew law.
"For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not
together. And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him,
saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with
hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
But neither so did their witness agree together. And the high priest
stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing?
what is it which these witness against thee? But he held his peace, and
answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him,
Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and
ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and
coming in the clouds of Heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes,
and saith, What need we any further witnesses? ye have heard the
blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of
death. And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to
buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy."[273]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account