Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 06.pdf/369

 338

to minute criticism. Apparent inconsis tencies were dilated upon, and extenuating facts pleaded. The culprit himself was permitted to urge anything in his own favor or against the evidence of the prosecution. If a disciple found a cogent or valid argument on behalf of the prisoner, he was placed among the judges, and regarded as a member of the court during the entire day. If, on the other hand, one of the disciples noticed anything calculated to injure the defence, he was not permitted to call attention thereto. As soon as the discussion terminated, the preparations for recording the votes com menced. The scribes were ready, and each judge, beginning with the youngest, pro nounced his decision for or against the accused. At the same time each stated the facts upon which his conclusion was grounded. The observations of the members were care fully recorded and preserved. As soon as the whole of the Synhedrin had voted, the numbers were announced. If eleven convicted and twelve acquitted, the prisoner was without delay discharged, a majority of one voice being sufficient for this purpose. If twelve convicted and eleven acquitted, the accused could not be condemned, a majority of at least two being required. In such a case the following expedient was adopted: two additional judges were added, these being selected from the first row of disciples. Voting then recommenced. If a majority of two against the prisoner was thus obtained he was convicted. If not, the process of in creasing by twos the number of the Syn hedrin continued until the requisite pre ponderance was gained. Should the tribunal by this means come to consist of seventyone members, of whom thirty-six voted for a conviction and thirty -five against, the matter was reargued until one of the former gave way and declared in favor of an ac quittal. Should the six-and-thirty adhere to their opinions the prisoner was discharged. If at the original voting thirteen members of the Synhedrin decided to convict, or if

after the subsequent additions a majority of two was obtained in favor of the same course, the accused was found guilty. Sen tence, however, could not be pronounced until the following afternoon. The sitting was therefore suspended until the next morning. In such cases, that is, when sentence of death appeared inevitable, the Synhedrin adjourned immediately the majority that determined a conviction was announced. Slowly the members quitted the hall wherein the trial had been conducted. Gathering in knots of three and more, they remained for some little time in the street discussing among themselves the misfortune impending over their city — for as such all Hebrews regarded the execution of a fellow man. Gradually the groups broke up; the judges proceeded to their homes. They ate but a small quan tity of food, and were not permitted to drink wine during the remainder of the day or evening. After sunset they made calls upon each other, again debating the various argu ments adduced during the trial. At night each retired to his chamber and gave him self up to meditations; or so it was believed. The knowledge that a life — a life declared by their traditions to be equal to a world — depended upon their verdict, would lead them to ponder upon the judgment of the morrow. There was yet time to reconsider the sen tence, time to recall a decision that a few hours would render eternally irrevocable. Rising early in the morning, they returned to the house of justice. Not one was per mitted to partake of food. The day that condemned an Israelite to death was a fastday for his judges. Meeting in the hall of assembly the members of the Synhedrin with their disciples were arranged as on the pre ceding morning. The witnesses were again present; the criminal was brought in. The scribes seated themselves, and proceedings, commenced. One by one each judge in suc cession pronounced his decision; again each repeated the arguments upon which it was.