tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post8360596761857545986..comments2024-03-28T13:08:26.494-04:00Comments on Religion & American Law: The Use of the Ten Commandments in CourtBrantley Gasawayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02894338478934982958noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-9218193149985956332010-02-03T22:31:09.434-05:002010-02-03T22:31:09.434-05:00I think Caitlin brought up a really good point in ...I think Caitlin brought up a really good point in her last sentence. Why is the church allowed in the court room? With the separation of church and state, the Ten Commandments should not have any relevance in the case. However, this question begins another slippery slope. If the Ten Commandments are seen as a symbol of religion that should hold no value in the courtroom then what about the other aspects of religion we find to be common practice, such as taking oath over a bible or other form of religious books?Alicia_Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17794592533231186094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-70323234906677711042010-02-03T13:07:02.956-05:002010-02-03T13:07:02.956-05:00I understand wanting to discredit him and to show ...I understand wanting to discredit him and to show that he is a swindling crook because he steals from his own family. I understand the irony of the “Do not lie…”mantra. It makes sense to shame and humiliate him, but I still have a hard time with common vs. constitutional. If it is illegal to put a person on trial for heresy, then why call upon “The Ten Commandments” and comment on the yarmulke as evidence of being a degenerate person? I understand that that is part of the “common law”, but if we are differentiating between common and constitutional, than why is the church allowed in the courtroom?Caitlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11867399141020126492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-38721964705103639672010-02-03T12:32:51.622-05:002010-02-03T12:32:51.622-05:00From reading the two articles, I did not see much ...From reading the two articles, I did not see much by way of the use of the Ten Commandments in discrediting the government’s witness, Mr. Dwek. Aside from the author of the first article asking how many Commandments had been broken, and the irony associated with the witness wearing a Yarmulke in accord with the 613 Commandments, not too much is made of a religious opposition to the witness. Obviously, the practice of discrediting or attempting to discredit witnesses has long since been an element of our judicial system and legal strategy. One would be hard-pressed to find a trial in which a character witness is not called or the credibility of someone is not questioned. That being said, this is a fully legitimate practice being used by the defense, and is even justified by the government’s attorney, Mr. Zegas. He says "attacking the witness as morally corrupt would not constitute jury nullification because jurors, if they believe the witness is so corrupt that he is lying under oath, are permitted to acquit based on the witness's lack of credibility.” In response to Neary’s assertion that the government is in cahoots with some shady characters, I would be interested in the amount of corrupt politicians and other criminals that have been convicted with the use of such informants. It is unfortunate that such people must be used and are often given legal asylum for their work, but that is the nature of the system and does not nullify the criminal actions of the defendants.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18082697363156833444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-76170434045739357982010-02-02T21:53:28.380-05:002010-02-02T21:53:28.380-05:00These two articles were extremely interesting; and...These two articles were extremely interesting; and I believe that they aptly show the intersection of common law and constitutional law and how such a correlation plays out in the court room. In regard to the treatment of Dwek by the defense, I would agree that this seems like somewhat of a last resort. The defense obviously wishes to undermine the legitmacy of Dwek as a witness. Whether or not the use of the ten commandments is the best way of doing so or if it is even relevant to the case at hand is questionable. However, if the judge does not dismiss the questioning, then I suppose the defense can legitimately engage in it. In most cases the defense ultimately tries to show the defendant in a positive light, while at the same time trying to discredit the witnesses provided by the prosecution. The utilization of the ten commandments by the defense, I suppose, provides them with a stronger case. However, I think that ultimately the defense knows that it is in trouble, and it is merely searching for any argument that might undermine the evidence and testimony provided by Dwek.Abby Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162338278428970964noreply@blogger.com