A Glimmer of Hope in the Judicial System
Finally! Relief! Something I’m forced to live with is not against who I am! In a previous post, the presumption of innocence allowed my rapist to be free and not be punished. Whitman claimed that this practice came from the grades of presumption in Canon law. The presumption of innocence seemed unbiblical because it placed the accused above the plaintiff; God is always fair. While the presumption of innocence is unbiblical because Pope Innocence III judged it from a guilty conscience (Franklin, p. 44), the grades of presumption is actually biblical.
Franklin (p. 42) explains that the grades of presumption comes from the interpretation of Solomon. Two women came to Solomon each claiming that a baby was theirs (Franklin, p. 42). To determine which woman was the mother, Solomon said that he would cut the baby in half to give to each woman (Franklin, p. 42). The real mother pleaded against this judgement (Franklin, p. 42).
This story led Pope Innocence III to implement the idea (Franklin, p. 42) that facts can indicate motives (Franklin, p. 36). Therefore, violent presumptions can lead to distinctive sentence (Franklin, p. 42). Now Canon law has three divisions of presumptions – rash, probable, and violent (Franklin, p. 42).