Judge Uses Bible Lesson To Teach

Judge Uses Bible Lesson To Teach Defendant Responsibility
A defendant in Harnett County Superior Court got a Bible lesson from Superior Court Judge Gregory Weeks about taking responsibility for his crimes. Allan Wayne Scott, 21, was in Superior Court Monday morning for a plea hearing. He was originally charged with felony larceny and breaking and entering. Scott and three others are accused of breaking into a home in July taking electronics and a safe. Scott confessed to the crimes and helped detectives with their investigation. Scott’s lawyer, David McRae, said his client didn’t have a prior record and admitted Scott had fallen in with “the wrong group” when he went along with the burglary. McRae said Scott has since moved from where he was living to get away from his co-defendants. It was after that that Judge Weeks began the lesson. “Mr. Scott, if you would, sit down and open that Bible there in front of you (on the table),” Judge Weeks instructed. “Open it to Genesis chapter three, verse eight. I don’t want to put you on the spot, but if you would, read that please.” Opening the Bible used for swearing in, Scott began to read the account of God’s first encounter in the Garden of Eden with the naked and hiding Adam and Eve just after they had eaten fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. “The first people on the face of the earth, God asked a simple question and the response was, ‘It wasn’t my fault,’” Judge Weeks said. “Since then, even up until now, people have come in (to court) and tried to place blame on somebody else. “Bottom line is, just like Adam and Eve, you’ve had choices and you’ve made choices - you can’t place blame on anybody else,” Judge Weeks said. “Nobody put a gun to your head. You have to be responsible for the choices you make. If you continue to make bad choices ... it will be no one’s fault but your own,” Judge Weeks told Scott. In the end, as part of the plea agreement, Scott was given a four- to five-month suspended sentence on consolidated charges and 18 months probation, with drug testing to begin in 30 days. http://www.1270wmpm.com/

 

If he referenced the Quran this would have 30 replies by now.

 

This defendant didn't use the Quran for his swearing in. The Bible is universally accepted in the USA for swearing in ceremonies. I feel the judge did an admirable job trying to reach this defendant and drive his point home. Would you rather the judge rapped to the defendant?

 

Short answer - Yes

 

Hught, he just asked the guy to read a relevant story, he wasn't trying to convert him. 8) No where in there did I read that he is sentencing the guy to church.

 

I agree, not trying to be a "holy roller",but if he had been in church instead of stealing somebody's stuff,he wouldn't been in court. And reading never hurt anybody.

 

We don't know the religious background of the defendant. Suppose he had been an atheist or an agnostic, or someone who felt that the Bible is a collection of stories that may not have been relevant to him. Would you have considered that perhaps the judge overstepped his bounds there?

Not that I expect it to happen, but if I were in front of the judge, I would object to his use of the Bible to educate me.

Suppose the judge was LDS and had the gentleman read from the Book of Mormon? Would that have gotten any responses of support?

What if the judge were a pagan, Wiccan, or a Unitarian and gave the defendant some choice from among their religious views?

I'm more concerned about equal protection under law, than a judge who requires a defendant to use a religious text. Does this judge require biblical reading from all his defendants?

I am happy for the judge that his religious convictions ring true...for him. I don't see where it was appropriate in court. If his honor feels so strongly about using the Bible to teach lessons, perhaps he should leave the bench and enter the pulpit.

 

Makes no difference. The defendant, most likely, was just doing what he could to "beat the charge", i.e., pull a fast one on the judge to convince him of his innocence or reduced responsibility for what happened. The judge, having good common sense, called him on it and demonstrated that he recognized his B.S. as B.S. the defendant, most likely, was not religious before he walked into that court nor after he walked out. And, most likely, he was not at all offended by the judge using the Bible. I am sure that the defendant is angry with the judge, but this has nothing to do with the Bible. He is angry, most likely, because he refuses to take responsibility for his actions and blames the judge for whatever he has to suffer over the next few months, like not smoking pot. If he doesn't care, I don't see the point of us caring either. (Actually I do see the point, but would rather not waste my time.)

 

Many people will swear to the tell the truth and still be deceptive, whether using the Bible or not. However, if a person in a court of law places their hand upon the Bible and swears upon it to tell the truth, isn't there an implied obligation upon them to be truthful to the court and, in a way, act as a demonstrated expression of trust in what they are swearing upon? It would seem to me that if a person will make an oath using the Bible to reflect their sincerity, than they should be willing to take a lesson from it.

 

You make an interesting point. If the person believes the Bible to be the word of God, certainly placing their hand upon the Bible does place that obligation upon them. But what if the person is an atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, Wiccan, etc., and believes the Bible is a collection of myths, then how does putting that person's hand on the Bible make it any more likely they will tell the truth? Wouldn't it be just as effective to have them place their hand on a cookbook?

 

I don't know the judge, and if it were the case the jury, so I cannot be sure that they can put their personal opinions aside. So what is the likelihood that I am going to tell the judge that the Bible is a meaningless document to me?

What would immediatley go through my mind is that I am going to get a harsher sentence than the individual who would swear an oath on the document.

 

That's why we should just have witnesses affirm under penalty of perjury, instead of using a book that may or may not be sacred to them.

 

It's a tradition, like judges wearing black robes or the bailiff calling out "Oyay, oyay".

A person is going to lie, if telling the truth will put them in jeopardy (and they think they can get away with it), whether they swear on a Bible or cross their heart and hope to die (stick a needle in their eye). Why should we break such a long standing tradition just because a few want to be the center of attention by making a big deal of something that really doesn't affect them one way or the other?

 

I still haven't seen any evidence this guy's "rights" were violated in any way. Did I miss something?

 

I don't think the bailiff calls out "oyay, oyay" any more, and judges wearing wigs used to be a tradition, too. Why should only Christians be required to place their hand on something they hold sacred?

 

They actually say, "oh yes, oh yes, oh yes". That isn't a joke either. Back me up people.

 

Yes, they do say that. First they make you stand up, then say "Oh yes, oh yes, oh yes, this honorable court for the County of Johnston is now in session and sitting for the conduct of its business. Honorable Judge T. Yates Dobson presiding. Be seated and come to order." But they don't say "oyay" any more. Or "Oh Yea" either.

 

Isn't that rather insulting to using their Holy Book is the equivalent of a meaningless tradition?

 

Isn't that rather insulting?

Using the Holy Book in the equivalent of a meaningless tradition?

 

Well, that's a good idea. In the course of my work, I have to swear on the Bible a lot and it seems rather silly to me that the magistrate always assumes that swearing on the Bible has some sort of meaning to me.

BTW, the last time I was in court, all the bailiff said when the judge entered was "You may remain seated." However, when I was standing in the aisle while there was nothing going on but the judge was at the bench, the bailiff told me to sit down. ( The judge didn't care; lots of people were standing up.) So much for traditions, I guess. I think the judge was playing solitaire on his computer while he was waiting for an attorney conference to end, but I couldn't swear to it.