Form of Procedure in Capital Trials among the Jews. case a prisoner could be acquitted the same day as he was tried, but sentence of death could not be pronounced until the following afternoon. Lastly, in ordinary cases, the judges voted according to seniority, the oldest commencing; in a capital trial the reverse order was followed. That the younger members of the Synhedrin should not be influenced by the views or arguments of their more mature, more experienced colleagues, the junior judge was in these cases always the first to pronounce for or against a con viction. As soon as the Synhedrin was ready the examination of the witnesses commenced. The first who was to give evidence was taken into an adjoining chamber and carefully admonished. He was asked if he had not perchance founded his conviction of the pris oner's guilt upon probability, on circum stantial proof, or by hearsay; whether he was not influenced in his opinions by persons whom he regarded as trustworthy and reput able. Did he know he would be submitted to a searching and rigorous examination? and was he acquainted with the penalty entailed by perjury? The most venerable of the judges then addressed the witness, solemnly adjuring him to truthfulness. "Do you know," said the rabbin, "the difference between a civil and a criminal case? In the former case an error is always reparable; resti tution can always be made. But in the latter an unjust sentence can never be atoned for; and you are responsible for the blood of the condemned and all his possible descendants. For this reason God created Adam — whose posterity fills the earth — alone and sole, in order that we might understand that he who saves a single soul is as though he saved an entire world; and he who compasses the destruction of a single life is as though he had destroyed a world. That the Almighty formed but one man in the beginning is more over intended to teach us that all men are brethren, and to prevent any individual from regarding himself as superior to a person be
337
longing to another nation. Nevertheless," continued the judge, " if you witnessed the crime and conceal the facts you are culpable. Have no fear therefore of the reponsibility you incur; and remember that as a city rejoiceth when the righteous succeed, so doth a town shout when they that wrought wickedness are punished." Upon the con clusion of this exhortation the examination commenced. The Hakiroth, questions as to time and place, were put to each of the witnesses, and subsequently the Bedikoth, inquiries relative to the commission of the crime. As soon as the answers constituting the evidence against the prisoner had been received they were submitted to the Syn hedrin. The consideration of the case was thereupon proceeded with. As we before pointed out, the rebutting testimony could only be directed against the Hakiroth by proving an alibi against one or both of the witnesses. If the accused succeeded in so doing he was of course at once acquitted. If there was a marked discrepancy in the Bedikoth — sufficient, in fact, to render the statements of the witnesses contradictory — the trial equally of course immediately terminated. There would be, under the cir cumstances named, no evidence legally ad missible; no valid testimony to lay before the Synhedrin. Supposing, however, the facts elicited from the witnesses were such as could be brought into court in support of the charge, then the tribunal commenced the discussion preliminary to voting. The deliberations could only begin with an argument in favor of the accused. Noth ing was therefore urged until one of the judges found some fact or facts telling against the prosecution. The member of the Syn hedrin then rose and, alluding to the circum stances, said: "According to such and such a statement, it appears to me the prisoner must be acquitted." The discussion there upon became general. Every item of evi dence was carefully overhauled; each of the answers given by the witnesses was subjected
