# Exercises in General Equity



## RamistThomist (Nov 22, 2006)

Everybody talks about general equity, let's throw it open and see how to apply that. Here are some examples. I would like to see people state a problem or an issue and then apply it according to the equity of the law (whatever that is).

"The Two Witnesses thing" 
Would forensic science be okay in evidence? I mean, CSI can get pretty exact. 

"Man seducing virgin"
Many have erroneously assumed this to be a "man rapes a virgin, submits her to terror and humiliation" and now he has to marry her (e.g., submitting her to the same terror every night). Well, I, with a lot of good exegetes and theologians, doubt that's what the text says. Its more along the lines of "seducing" a virgin. That would make a lot more sense that forcible rape. But let's assume
1) The text is talking about rape (although I don't think it is)
2) In said society polygamy is wrong.
3) Apropos of (2),The man has a wife already
4) Apropos of (3), he, therefore, can't marry the virgin,
5) Since we are not in that primitive barbarian culture (eg. OT Israel), we are to enlightened to have bridal prices, thus there is no substantive reason why the rapist would pay the father the said fine.
-------
Okay, in light of the premises, how do you apply the equity of the law?
And here are the necessary criteria to meet:
a. The punishment can't be too severe (that begs the question of how severe is too severe, but moving on)
b. The punishment can't be too light.
c. The victim must receive justice.

Those are the first two that came to my mind.


----------



## non dignus (Nov 24, 2006)

*The Two Witnesses*

I think the concept traverses culture very well. I'm in favor of capital punishment on the testimony of one credible witness, with other evidence ofcourse.

*Man Seducing Virgin*

The breakdown occurs when man and virgin are allowed to be together alone. The virgin's folly here would contribute to the crime. Punishment should include paying large monies for damages to virgin.

Rape should carry the maximum penalty.

Jacob am I tracking with you on this? Did I misunderstand the thread?


----------



## non dignus (Nov 24, 2006)

Here's an example for translating general equity:

Two adulterers break into a locked church and sin with a high hand right in front of the pulpit. They are seen by two witnesses who tell all to the burglary investigator.

What would be the Theonomic thing to do?


----------



## JohnV (Nov 24, 2006)

Draught Horse said:


> Everybody talks about general equity, let's throw it open and see how to apply that. Here are some examples. I would like to see people state a problem or an issue and then apply it according to the equity of the law (whatever that is).
> 
> "The Two Witnesses thing"
> Would forensic science be okay in evidence? I mean, CSI can get pretty exact.
> ...



In the second case, I would think that the rapist deserves a heavy punishment, maybe even the death penalty. I do not see how his comtempt for anyone other than himself is any less than a murderous heart. At any rate, such people do not belong in society as if they are part of it. 

The general equity has to do the circumstances involved in each individual case. Such a case could be varied by a lot of different circumstances. Someone whose heart has turned cold is different than someone who has never known any other way of dealing with people. What was at one time considered to be generally equitable is now deemed not generally equitable at all. Criminals may now be just as much victims of their social circumstances as the people they victimize with their crimes. It is definitely not this sense of general equity that the Westminster Confession alludes to, I believe. 

I would think that the social norms need to be rebuilt, and this along the lines of true justice, a justice which does not change with the times. Only God's law provides that kind of moral judgment necessary for this. 

All the same, you cannot build a moral social order without Christian churches at the heart of it. A church cannot be servant to the state, and the state cannot be servant to the church. No one church has been able to ward off corruptions altogether, and no state has been able to build a Christian society without uncorrupted churches. And I also believe that building either one upon philosophical principles instead of faith principles is a poor substitute. We have to have Christ walking among us and in us if we want to know what His law requires of us. That's the only way, and that is the only understanding of 'general equity' that is at all fulfilling. 

As to the first case, the admissibility of forensic evidence as a replacement for a second witness, I don't accept either one as a replacement of the other. Both can add up to substantiating the charges against a person, but it can still be that one goes against the other. The law cannot take the lazy way out, but has to do the work to make sure that the law is really being served justly. 

We had a case in Toronto just this week: all the forensic evidence clearly pointed to the accused, but the victim, who had at first identified the accused by photograph, claimed it was not him when coming face to face. This outweighed the forensic evidence, as I believe it should. It may be that the victim was terrorized into disidentifying the accused, but this has nothing to do with how the justice system must view such evidences. I think it was right to pull the charges, as was done, in light of this revelation. It raises a lot of other questions, to be sure, such as why the AO waited until the court appearance to identify the accused properly, but it changes nothing of the principles of law. Again, the social moral order has more to do with this than the unchangeable sense of general equity which the WCF speaks of.


----------



## non dignus (Nov 25, 2006)

> All the same, you cannot build a moral social order without Christian churches at the heart of it.



John,
Would you mind elaborating a bit more?


----------

