Courts And The Supernatural

[joggerjayne]

Why is it described as "bizarre" when a Court considers evidence obtained from spirits at a seance?

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/10/04/amanda-knox-retrial-takes-supernatural-turn

Surely the supernatural is part and parcel of Court proceedings.

As the author Peter James has pointed out, witnesses who speak in Court are asked to confirm their belief in the supernatural by taking an oath to a supernatural being called God.

Surely Courts should more often whip out the ouija board and look for evidence from the spirit world?

[joggerjayne]

Because Aunt Bessie is not real.

Aaaaaagh, sorry ... I just gave away the answer to another thread. Please don't go and tell them. It would spoil their fun.

[askyourgran]

I won't say a word jj, scouts honour.

[FredPuli43]

Early last century, a defendant giving evidence cried out "If I am not telling the truth, may God strike me down!" whereupon prosecuting counsel took out his pocket watch, and waited for a full minute, before replying "Since the Almighty has not seen fit to accede to your invitation, please be so kind as to answer my question"

The Italians may have a free interpretation of hearsay, but they probably only judge the case on evidence, including physical evidence, found in consequence of it

[Zacs-Master]

An Italian court judging a case on evidence. Mmm.

[society]

JJ

"I don't think the spirits submit evidence.

What they do is guide the witness, and communicate through the witness, rather as God guides witnesses to tell the truth.

And, presumably, if they don't tell the truth, smites them with a big stick or something.

I can't see any problem with a Ouija Board in Courts.

Swear by Almighty God, blah blah, yada yada ... now, would you please place your hand on the upside down glass on the board in front of you ... "


So suppose an evil spirit was invoked and they guided the judges mind to think an innocent person is guilty, would that be fair to the innocent person?

[joggerjayne]

No, not fair, society ...

But it would be pretty jolly exciting, wouldn't it?

"I swear that I shall tell the truth, the whole truth, and ..."

"Oh, crap, it's Pazuzu!"

:0D

[askyourgran]

This is getting complicated. The Courts would have to have a resident Exorcist... or something similar to sweeping the buildings for bugs.

[joggerjayne]

A new career for school leavers ... Court Exorcist

[Gromit]

The courts are not condoning peoples' beliefs by the swearing on an holy book. It is merely a device designed to get a truthful answer from people who think a higher being is watching over them.

Plenty of people affirm to tell the truth than swear on a book.

The court is not relying on supernatural evidence, but using peoples' belief in a supernatural being to get them to tell the truth.

Seances and other mumbo jumbo are mot acceptable because there is no readonable basis for believing they are true.

[Svejk]

Last time I declined to swear on the Bible the magistrates glared at me over the tops of their glasses while the usher found the affirmation. They then dispensed with my evidence and moved straight to the "how much do you earn, you pagan swine" phase of the hearing. Next time, if there is one, I'll swear on a stack of Bibles.

[ludwig]

They need to reword the oath to reflect the fact that we live in a largely secular society and that religion has no bearing on the judicial process.

A simple promise to tell the truth and acknowledgment that to knowingly mislead the court will result in prosecution for perjury would be sufficient as a standard oath for everybody.

[jomifl]

as soon as the words 'gender re-assignment' appear acceptance of reality flies out of the window.

[Gromit]

// They need to reword the oath to reflect the fact that we live in a largely secular society and that religion has no bearing on the judicial process. //

They already have that. It is called an 'Affirmation'. You can opt for it in any Court.

[Gromit]

You are allowed any phobia you like.

[ludwig]

// They already have that. It is called an 'Affirmation'. You can opt for it in any Court. //

My point is it's optional but shouldn't be. It should be the standard oath taken by all.

[FredPuli43]

The point in the Italian case, as it would be here is not that a witness says "voices in my head/ God/ my next door neighbour/ the Flying Spaghetti monster/ the Spirits/ told me where to find the weapon and I did find it" but that the weapon was found by the witness. That part is admissible. That it was the murder weapon or that the defendant owned it or used it cannot be proved by what someone else , even Spirits, said to the witness, for that is hearsay; something put into evidence to prove the facts stated in it; and generally inadmissible. That part can only be proved by calling the person who told the witness to say that they witnessed the weapon being used by the defendant or can say from their own observation that the defendant owned it. It may be that Italian courts admit the hearsay but pay little attention to the facts alleged in it, preferring to rely upon what the witness saw of those.

[Old_Geezer]

One may use a Ouija board, but it'd still be one being's word against another. The court needs firm evidence.