Killing and the Courts

Long ago in another culture where there were no policemen and no laws against owning or carrying weapons, Moses gave some laws which covered cases where someone was killed (see Numbers 35). A relative could avenge the blood of a person slain unless the killer fled to a city of refuge. In the city of refuge, judges listened to the case and made a decision. Some of the criteria for determining whether the killing was murder were these: the killer used a weapon, the killer hated the victim, or the killer had lain in wait. In that culture, relatives of victims had the responsibility of seeing that murderers were punished, and the judges in a city of refuge had the responsibility of seeing that the accused was judged fairly.

We don't live in that culture, and its laws are not our laws. We don't want relatives avenging the blood of a victim. We give that responsibility to our government. We expect our government to protect the innocent and punish the evil doer. In the case Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, both the accused and the family of the victim need to be shown that justice will be done. In my opinion, and I speak only as a citizen concerned that justice is done, the case deserves the attention of the courts because a weapon was used, hateful words were spoken, and one or both people felt threatened. The case would have received the attention of the judges under Mosaic Law, and I think it should receive the attention of the courts today.

What I have written should not be interpreted as unqualified support for Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, or any of their supporters or detractors.