View source for Is the premarital unchastity case of Deut. 22:13 an example of the justice system assuming guilt until a defendant proves her innocence?

<languages />{{:Navleft|Category:Answered Questions|{{:AnsweredQuestionsname/{{PAGELANGUAGE}}}}}}
<div class="questionbody">
<translate><!--T:1--> No. This is a section of the case laws that is often misunderstood, because it is actually intertwining the circumstances of two different prosecutions (legal cases).  These cases are not describing a woman who is (as one well-known commentator claims) "presumed guilty until she proves her innocence".<ref>Walter Kaiser, ''Toward Old Testament Ethics'', p. 229</ref></translate>

<translate><!--T:2--> Here are the relevant verses:</translate>

{{:Scriptblock|Deuteronomy 22:13-21}}

<translate>==Disentangling the cases== <!--T:3--></translate>

<translate><!--T:4--> In the first case (the father accusing the husband of slander), the "signs of virginity" will guarantee that the father wins, given that the husband has no real (eyewitness) evidence, and is just publicly slandering the daughter. If the father chose not to keep such "signs," then it would only mean that he couldn't successfully prosecute the husband for slander.</translate>

<translate><!--T:5--> The reason that the "signs of virginity" (a cloth with blood, perhaps?) is mentioned in the second case is that it would act as clear ''exculpatory'' evidence on behalf of the girl (in a circumstance where the husband used false witnesses).</translate>

<translate><!--T:6--> In Deut 22:20, the "signs of virginity" are merely functioning as a rebuttal to the husband's evidence. He must already have provided at least two eyewitnesses, because two witnesses are ''always'' required:</translate>

{{:Scriptblock|Deuteronomy 19:15}}

<translate><!--T:7--> Deuteronomy 19:15 states that legal "truth" had to be established by 2 or 3 witnesses (confirmed by Jesus in John 8:17). This always puts the burden of proof on the accuser, never on the accused.</translate>

<translate><!--T:8--> These witnesses provided by the husband would presumably claim to be witnesses to, or participants in, premarital fornication by the wife. The bloody cloth (assuming that's what it was) was considered a credible and sufficient defense by the girl and her father against the charge of lying about her virginity. Notice the two parts of verse 20:</translate>

<translate><!--T:9--> {{:Scriptblock|Deuteronomy 22:20|ver=KJV}}</translate>

<translate><!--T:10--> The phrase "the thing is true" shows that the husband's charge was established by eyewitnesses as "true" (in the sense of legal testimony which has not been rebutted). The lack of signs of virginity would not qualify as any sort of "witness" -- it is merely an absence of evidence. Therefore, we can infer that two or more actual eyewitnesses to the girl's guilt were brought by the husband. The phrase "evidences of virginity are not found" shows that there was no exculpatory evidence to defend against the eyewitness testimony.</translate>

<translate><!--T:11--> This is not a case of indirect(circumstantial) evidence being used to prove guilt. It is a case of indirect evidence being allowed and presumed credible as exculpatory evidence showing the girl's innocence.</translate>
</div>
{{DISPLAYTITLE:<translate><!--T:12--> {{PAGENAME}}</translate>}}

[[Category:Answered Questions]]
[[Category:Deuteronomy 22:13]]
[[Category:Questions about judicial procedure and due process]]
[[Category:Questions about marriage and family]]
[[Category:Questions about the differing treatment of persons in Biblical law]]
[[Category:Slander]]
[[Category:Witness testimony]]