Thursday, June 03, 2010

The Bible, Interrogation and the Supreme Court's Miranda Rights

by Michael Hoffman
Copyright ©2010 

The report this week of the Supreme Court's June 1 decision in Berghuis v. Thompkins, on the interpretation of the 1966 Miranda ruling (Arizona v. Miranda) is an interesting one.

In 2000, an accused murderer, Van Chester Thompkins, was silent for nearly three hours while being interrogated by the police concerning the killing of young Samuel Morris in Southfield, Michigan. He only finally answered when one of the detectives asked him, "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" At this the murderer, who still had a conscience, broke down and answered that he did pray thus, thereby confessing his guilt. Thompkins was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Some sectors of our society view this police interrogation and its result (the gaining of evidence against the murderer and his eventual conviction) as entrapment. "Defense" attorneys sought to have the conviction overturned on the basis that the interrogation violated the accused man's Miranda right to silence. They appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

We note that the accused consented to be present at the interrogation and, as a result of the interrogation, his conscience was pricked and he was moved to confess his crime.

On the materialist/humanist plane, his supposed legal defenders view these two developments as a severe liability. How wrong they are: without confession there can be no forgiveness.

We are all for the right to silence, which Jesus established for us by being silent in the presence of his accusers. But Jesus was innocent and the man in question was guilty, and had Mr. Thompkins gone on to repentance he would be bound for heaven now, whatever his sentence on earth.

The world does not see it that way, however. In their rank materialism, all that matters to the worldly is the condition of the body and not the eternal destiny of the soul. Consequently, "defense" lawyers argue against a just verdict based on an honest confession and seek to have it overturned on a legal technicality, viz. a misconstruction of the Miranda precedent, which the Supreme Court, in this instance, correctly rejected.

Interrogation of the innocent for purposes of entrapping them is of course a grave sin and corrupt police are known to commit this sin; against this corruption the innocent must be protected. The invocation of the right of silence in the face of interrogation is ethical, compelling and testimony to the wisdom of the American Bill of Rights in its Fifth Amendment.

Interrogation of the guilty benefits not only the victim but the accused, and this point is one which few defense lawyers grasp.

For proof let us turn to Genesis 3, wherein the serpent seduced the woman, and the woman the man, into not fearing God and thereby succumbing to the temptation to transgress God's law.

In Genesis 3:9 God begins His arraignment of Adam and Eve by interrogating them. Of course God is omniscient and His interrogation is needful only for the spiritual benefit of Adam and Eve, as well as for all future generations of believers, as a model of judicial investigation.

Important legal lessons are imparted in Genesis concerning how to approach suspects. God's interrogation in Genesis 3: 9-13 forms an exemplary precedent for all judges, prosecutors and police officers.

In reply to God's questions, Adam accuses his wife and Eve likewise blames not herself but the serpent. Nonetheless, and this is key, in spite of attempting to minimize their guilt, they do not deny the crime for which they stand accused. Silence on the part of Adam and Eve in response to God's interrogation would have greatly compounded their transgression.

The humanist-oriented lawyer will only be interested in exculpating the defendants by having them resist God's interrogation through silence. Yet unknown to such a humanist mindset, any such silence would have brought a far more grievous sentence down upon our first parents than what they received after confessing their guilt, even though they did so in a roundabout manner. In this case, interrogation offered the guilty an opportunity to confess. Only through their mea culpa could repentance and reconciliation with God begin.

So-called defense lawyers would prefer that the guilty defendants refuse to answer the questions. This is the fatal and shortsighted folly of lawyers. They overlook the significance of the fact that there were three perpetrators, and yet only two were interrogated. The serpent was not interrogated by God -- because God did not intend to show the serpent any mercy!

Godly interrogation of the guilty is an act of mercy, a first step on the path to forgiveness for crimes committed.

The "conservatives" on the Supreme Court did not make this argument. "Conservative" justices like Antonin Scalia are more likely to argue from the Talmud than the Bible. When they do cite the Bible it is often the Bible filtered through the Talmud (cf. Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. June 8, 2009, wherein Scalia argued using the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Aboth).

To establish God's justice and His legal procedures for mankind, Christians are to resort to the authority of Scripture and not the arbitrary and deluded humanist or other traditions of men who imagine themselves wiser than Yahweh.

Hoffman is the editor of Revisionist History newsletter and the author of They Were White and They Were Slaves and Judaism Discovered, offered here.

***

6 comments:

Larry M said...

We should expect more Godly rulings from our Supreme Court, with six Catholic justices comprising more than a majority, all beyond the reach of AIPAC and the Zionist lobby. Sadly, I'm not very optimistic.

Mike W said...

When "God" interrogated Adam and Eve, they had already partaken of the 'Attractive Nuisance' which he had presented - the forbidden fruit.
God had previous stated they would die 'on this day' if they partook of it as well.
False statements AND the creation of an attractive nuisance?
God might well have told children there was a mermaid at the bottom of his swimming pool.

Anonymous said...

Hey Mike,

It looks to me like you're merely looking for rationalization to dismiss revelation (the written tradition) and thus your personal accountability.

Have you explored the text to see if there is a relevant qualifier attached to this topic that might help you to gain insight? If not you would do well to question your own motives.

Anonymous said...

"Conservative" justices like Antonin Scalia are more likely to argue from the Talmud than the Bible. When they do cite the Bible it is often the Bible filtered through the Talmud (cf. Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. June 8, 2009, wherein Scalia argued using the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Aboth).

Dear Mr Hoffman, could you give the gist of his argument ?

Anonymous said...

"To establish God's justice and His legal procedures for mankind, Christians are to resort to the authority of Scripture . . . "

Mr. Hoffman, with all due respect, I would modify the above and write:

"To establish God's justice and His legal procedures for mankind, Christians are to resort to the authority of The Church . . . "

As far as the New Testament is concerned, the Apostles (who essentially were the early Church) preached before the evangelists wrote. The New Testament was a product of The Church -- The Church was not the product of the Bible.

You travel a slippery slope by condemning "other traditions of men" since in the minds of some that could condemn the Apostles as well as the pharisees.

We don't need any more sabbatarians, thank you.

In the end, it is a fallen world and no constitution, nor any method of jurisprudence, will ensure justice. Remember the beatitudes? They refer to eternal, not temporal, rewards.

The road to Christian Identity Liberation Theology is paved with Talmudic paranoia. There is no ideal government (or restoration of such) as long as it is implemented by fallen men.

Contemplate the crucifix, Mr. Hoffman. Don't become a Christian version of Lenny Bruce.

There is what should be and what is. Carry the cross and live firmly in the "what is" for that is the surest way to salvation.

Anonymous said...

Interesting article....as a christian lawyer i see both sides...yes, it is better for the guilty to confess and take the punishment. However, there is a growing oppression of the abuse of power and authority in the country like never before. Do your homework and you'll find out that our beginnings were not as benign as we've been led to believe...and that the ugly underbelly that we were not allowed to know about is rising to the surface and exposing itself, much like an alligator among us only after it is too late. Realize that as Jesus said, in the end, evil will be good and good will be evil...it therefore, only follows, that the power of the sword to do good will be used against those doing good and will be a sword used to protect evil. Therefore, it is more than ever very necessary to keep power in check...your argument belonged to yesterday's generation. The new generation is showing its head and the innocent and godly will find themselves more and more the ones in front of the interrogators. Restraint will be appreciated.