How would King Solomon judge of the Baltimore Police accused of murder?
King Solomon, during his reign three thousand years ago, judged numerous people as evidenced in his Proverbs. He wrote this proverb which is applicable to Baltimore.
The first to speak argues his innocence convincingly,
Then his opponent comes along and interrogates him. (Proverb 18:17)
The first speaker, the pursuer (prosecutor), or the plaintiffs (police) whose speech appears to show that he or she is in the right and that his or her case is unanswerable. Then the legal perspective is restored when the defendant submits him or her to a searching interrogation, thereby enabling the judge better to assess the issues at stake to determine the evidential value of his submissions.
The exact point is that the judge should listen to both parties, but that cross –examination brings out the truth or, at least, facilitate the sifting of the evidence and the doing of justice. (Proverbs, McKane)
Today, (3000 years later), the judge only rules on the trial proceedings and penalty. The jury will judge and if an accused decides not to be cross examined, it is their right “not to take the stand” (be cross-examined).
How would King Solomon judge this matter? His most known judgement was to cut a baby in half to appease two harlots claiming one baby. No one in Baltimore can now come to the rescue and ask that that that the baby be spared because the ‘baby’ is already dead. His only way to decide the Baltimore issue would be to cross-examine the prosecutor and the accused police.
However, if neither the prosecutor, or the plaintiffs agree to take the stand, will the prosecutor produce unanswerable evidence that the police intentionally murdered the victim?
An Ancient Remedy of Law
In ancient times, there was another remedy when someone died and the cause of death was not an intentional murder. In a novel Excerpt, I surmised how King Solomon explained this remedy to the Queen of Sheba. The novel is a contemporary application to relate God’s timeless wisdom to our modern world.
“The law is to protect the innocent from unjust accusations. We believe in having penalties for both false accusers and false witnesses.”
“How do Israelites determine penalties for the wrongdoers you judge?” Bilqis asked.
“Our penalties originate from the Laws of Moses. The basic intent of his laws is to dispense justice in equal measures of a life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, and foot for foot.”
“The premise of this law may sound harsh in tone; however, the intent is instead to obtain fairness and justice to the offender in an equal measure of the wrongful act. An enraged wronged person seeking revenge would be inclined to punish an offender with a penalty far greater than the crime. A prudent judge will determine the nature of the crime and the equivalency of the penalty.”
“For example, if someone killed a valuable animal of another, he or she would have to provide restitution for the value of the animal. If someone built a house that fell down and killed another accidentally, he or she could obtain sanctuary from revenge in a sanctuary city until a judgment and restitution is resolved.”
“We believe that the purpose Yahweh gave us the Ten Commandment Laws is to help make our people holy. Obeying the Holy Covenant Moses made with Yahweh is to fulfill his wishes for us to be holy. A person cannot be holy if they willfully disobey our laws.”
There is going to be a long trial. I have to concur with the words of this song when I consider how this matter will be judged when it goes to trial.
Listen if you are interested, you can listen to two different versions.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
Novel Excerpt Source