“Demon defense” in court?

[Nasor]

Here's something that I've always been curious about regarding Bible-believing Christians. Suppose you are on a jury in a criminal trial, and the defendant claims that he only committed the crime because he was possessed by a demon. Would this be a reasonable defense?

After all, the bible explicitly says that demons exist and that they can possess people. If we assume that demons are interesting in causing mischief, it seams that forcing someone to commit a crime in order to get the person in trouble/spread evil would be exactly the sort of thing that a demon would do. There might not be any evidence that the person was possessed, but it seams reasonable to assume that if a demon were pulling this sort of trick it would deliberately not leave any evidence of its involvement behind.

So, what do you do if you are on the jury? Of course you can't prove that the person is isn't just making up the demon in order to get off the hook for his own actions...but then again, it's also impossible to prove that he's lying. And people are supposed to be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Bowser]

"No Contest" might be the resolve of the defendent.

 

[Godless]

Perhaps the Jury will let him walk free, they certainly let this guy free:
http://www.myskeletonkey.com/detox/reverse/33.shtml

 

[Enterprise-D]

Clearly, if someone were to invoke this extremely aged defense, the equally outdated response should be applied: no trial capital punishment. Persons found to be possessed centuries ago were summarily executed.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Perhaps the Jury will let him walk free, they certainly let this guy free:
http://www.myskeletonkey.com/detox/reverse/33.shtml

Please, please tell me this is a hoax story.

If it isn't then the judge should be expelled from the bench, the prosecuting attorney needs to retake the bar and everyone in that jury needs to be relieved from their jobs for extended psychiatric care.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Here's something that I've always been curious about regarding Bible-believing Christians. Suppose you are on a jury in a criminal trial, and the defendant claims that he only committed the crime because he was possessed by a demon. Would this be a reasonable defense?

After all, the bible explicitly says that demons exist and that they can possess people. If we assume that demons are interesting in causing mischief, it seams that forcing someone to commit a crime in order to get the person in trouble/spread evil would be exactly the sort of thing that a demon would do. There might not be any evidence that the person was possessed, but it seams reasonable to assume that if a demon were pulling this sort of trick it would deliberately not leave any evidence of its involvement behind.

So, what do you do if you are on the jury? Of course you can't prove that the person is isn't just making up the demon in order to get off the hook for his own actions...but then again, it's also impossible to prove that he's lying. And people are supposed to be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

*************
M*W: Speaking from the defense perspective, insanity would be more appropriate.

 

[John99]

Here's something that I've always been curious about regarding Bible-believing Christians. Suppose you are on a jury in a criminal trial, and the defendant claims that he only committed the crime because he was possessed by a demon. Would this be a reasonable defense?

After all, the bible explicitly says that demons exist and that they can possess people. If we assume that demons are interesting in causing mischief, it seams that forcing someone to commit a crime in order to get the person in trouble/spread evil would be exactly the sort of thing that a demon would do. There might not be any evidence that the person was possessed, but it seams reasonable to assume that if a demon were pulling this sort of trick it would deliberately not leave any evidence of its involvement behind.

So, what do you do if you are on the jury? Of course you can't prove that the person is isn't just making up the demon in order to get off the hook for his own actions...but then again, it's also impossible to prove that he's lying. And people are supposed to be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Hi Nasor,

Quite simply "the devil made me do it" is NOT a defense. When it is brought up in a trial it is essentially a back door insanity defense.

You should have stated what the crime is, assuming it is a murder trial one could argue when is murder NOT insane (barring justifiable homicide).

If you go to trial with either a demon or insanity as a defense you have alot to worry about.

After all, the bible explicitly says that demons exist and that they can possess people.

I watched the Emily Rose (not her real name ) movie, and it is universally interpreted the posession is an extreme circumstance...if it does happen at all, which i am not convinced.

M*W: Speaking from the defense perspective, insanity would be more appropriate.

It is a crafty insanity defense, supernatural defenses are not even considered in any modern court.

 

[SnakeLord]

Quite simply "the devil made me do it" is NOT a defense

But it should be a viable one. After all, the very first thing you do in court is swear upon a sky fairy - belief in which stems from a book that claims demons are real and do possess people. It sounds a tad hypocritical to me.

 

[Enterprise-D]

But it should be a viable one. After all, the very first thing you do in court is swear upon a sky fairy - belief in which stems from a book that claims demons are real and do possess people. It sounds a tad hypocritical to me.

While I grant this point SL

- Don't many courts leave off the "so help you god" part of the truth swear?
- Isn't using the bible/quran/whatever still in practice in lieu of an agreed-upon replacement symbol of truth? ... Yes I'm aware of the irony of that phrase

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Quite simply "the devil made me do it" is NOT a defense. When it is brought up in a trial it is essentially a back door insanity defense.

You should have stated what the crime is, assuming it is a murder trial one could argue when is murder NOT insane (barring justifiable homicide).

If you go to trial with either a demon or insanity as a defense you have alot to worry about.

It is a crafty insanity defense, supernatural defenses are not even considered in any modern court.

**************
M*W: What about the Andrea Yates case?

www.usnewslink.com/yates.htm

 

[one_raven]

Please, please tell me this is a hoax story.

Where, exactly, do you think Tipickle, Theistica is?:bugeye:

 

[John99]

But it should be a viable one. After all, the very first thing you do in court is swear upon a sky fairy - belief in which stems from a book that claims demons are real and do possess people. It sounds a tad hypocritical to me.

Fair enough. Which demon claim's found in the bible i honestly dont know about. In court the bible is never referred to, i am guessing swearing is more symbolic and i dont think it is a requirement.

 

[SnakeLord]

- Don't many courts leave off the "so help you god" part of the truth swear?

Admittedly now they have become a little bit less biased yes.

 

[John99]

**************
M*W: What about the Andrea Yates case?

www.usnewslink.com/yates.htm

Hi M*W, i too have a problem with that case and it is the reason insanity is a defense.

BUT, people do go insane regardless of their beliefs...lack of etc.

 

[KennyJC]

But it should be a viable one. After all, the very first thing you do in court is swear upon a sky fairy - belief in which stems from a book that claims demons are real and do possess people. It sounds a tad hypocritical to me.

Just out of curiosity, do you have to swear on the Bible in all US states? And can you refuse stating atheism in the states that do?

 

[John99]

Just out of curiosity, do you have to swear on the Bible in all US states? And can you refuse stating atheism in the states that do?

What do they do in England?

______________________________

Purple haze, who saves? < Kenny what did Jimi say?

 

[SnakeLord]

Of course I think the claim should still be considered as a real possibility. After all, as theists often love to state: the majority of people believe in these sky fairies/demons and whatnot. Why are they so quick to dismiss them whenever it suits? When it comes down to the crunch it seems those that believe in these things are the very first in line to dismiss them as being a causing factor.

I remember the debate concerning that women that stoned her kids to death because god told her to. The theists were the very first to label her insane - and upon debating went on to state that god wouldn't tell people to do such a thing. I then of course had to point out deuteronomy where god tells people to stone their naughty sons to death. It's quite amusing really, watching them cling for dear life onto the "god did it" statement until something doesn't sound too appealing to them in which case it reverses to "god didn't do it".

 

[SnakeLord]

Just out of curiosity, do you have to swear on the Bible in all US states? And can you refuse stating atheism in the states that do?

I'm English.

 

[John99]

I'm English.

Snakelord,

Is this done in England as well?

 

[KennyJC]

What do they do in England?

We don't swear on the Bible anyway.

______________________________

Purple haze, who saves?

Up yours pinhead... next you'll be telling me the wind really does cry Mary.