by JH 19 Replies latest jw friends
It always takes at least 2 witnesses to accuse a brother of wrong doing. If there is only one witness, it's the word of one against the other. But if there is a camera that films the wrong doing, could this camera be like a second witness, or does it have to be like the bible says, minimum of 2 witnesses to accuse.
And if a brother was accused with proof, thanks to the camera, could he still say that there was only 1 witness, and that the picture could be doctored?
JH, did you rob an ATM again?
*counting his money*
You get to keep the bills that fall on the floor.
And if a brother was accused with proof, thanks to the camera, could he still say that there was only 1 witness, and that the picture could be doctored?
In this digital age, it is possible to doctor up a picture. I would think a digital picture could be questionable as proof. If you have an old fashioned camera with film i.e. (35 ml) and have the nice "printed by Kodak" on the back of the picture with negatives film to match, then it should be proof....
~~Sassy~~
But JW's don't live in the digital age, but biblical age. The use laws that are 2000 years old. They hold on to that. The witnesses can't just use some biblical laws and avoid others. The bible states that it takes 2 human witnesses, not 1.
This is only a theoretical question BTW.
yeah and how many times have we heard about inconsistancies with regard to carrying out those rules..
I was told that when I was tryign to prove that my first ex husband was being unfaithful (he admitted it to me.. but not to them about the sexual affair he was having), that I could have used a camera to prove something...
It was just the idea of sitting around and watching and throwing my life away just trying to catch him that reminded me how stupid a time waster it was.. so I didn't bother.. in the end I got my freedom through another means.
This is one interesting question that leads to another. Could DNA evidence be used as a second witness?
I know that in the U.K. at least, an accused person cannot be convicted on photographic or video evidence but a conviction can be obtained on DNA evidence.
link
but the thing is witnesses look at different things for evidence..
Look at a case that can be tried in court.. a rape for instance.. there are no witnesses and the accused can go to jail for the action. But they would do nothing in the case of the congregation if there are not two witnesses.. or other proof...just a jury to make a decision based on a trial is not enough..
You got caught doing somehin', didn't ya?
Well, I could care less what they think is the second witness. Whatever they feel works at the time is what they will use.
Pretty sad, really. :-(
Look at a case that can be tried in court.. a rape for instance.. there are no witnesses and the accused can go to jail for the action.
I think even in this case there has to be strong circumstantial evidence to back up the accusation. In this case, the evidence acts an eyewitness to the crime. If it is a case of he said, she said, without any other supporting evidence, I doubt this would go anywhere legally.
That is why it is so important to notify the police asap so they can start gathering that type of information. The elders are not trained, qualified or authorized to do that.
Blondie
The WTS accepts circumstantial evidence even if there is no eyewitness (from the Elders Handbook)
Strong circumstantial evidence, such as pregnancy or evi-Obviously, no one saw any sexual act take place. Evidently night time is the only time sex can take place according to the WTS.
dence (testified to by at least two witnesses) that the
accused stayed all night in the same house with a person of
the opposite sex (or in the same house with a known
homosexual ) under improper circumstances, is acceptable.
