Thursday, May 12, 2005

DUNG DUNG
Last night's Law & Order kinda ticked me off.

The plot involved new evidence that led to the resolution of a murder nine years ago. The perpetrator had since had a sincere conversion to Christianity, and his defense lawyer sought to dismiss the charges on the basis of this conversion.

Throughout the episode, lawyers on both sides and judges kept lamenting that "the way things are going in the country nowadays," such a motion could be successful, and if not, the jury could nullify what should be a conviction. I suppose it was supposed to be a cautionary tale about creeping theocracy eroding the separation of church and state,

Nonsense. I would be call myself a "social conservative," and if I were on a jury, I would never acquit a murderer only because of his repentance in the meantime. We do not seek to substitute God's judgment for the judgment of the law. We simply think it's reasonable that our laws reflect the values we share, and that the country was built upon.

As Ramesh Ponnuru put it yesterday, there's a false choice being proposed here -- either we strip our laws of all Christian values, or we start letting murderers go free if they've really repented to God, since God is the ultimate judge.

I reject that choice, and I think most "social conservatives" do as well.

UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg had similar thoughts.
Post a Comment