The life of a thing is contained in its blood. In the blood can be found the unique code for that thing's existence, and if you remove the blood, that thing will cease to exist.

There is also something quite intangible about the relationship between a living thing and its blood, and it can be felt in the deepest places of the soul, especially when a thing is deprived of its life-blood.

In the legal realm, that sentiment is echoed in our codes and statutes as they relate to a human causing the death of another human. There are many, many different circumstances where a death of a person can be the result of another person's actions, but in the context of history and even spirituality, there is only one element that matters in deciding a case involving the death of a human: intent. By contrast, our state's legislature has made so many distinctions in this area that consistency is unrealistic. Paired with dramatic displays in news conferences and deployment of emotionally charged rhetoric instead of reasonable and factual articulation, all that seems to be relevant to those who execute the law is how riled up they can get the public, and in turn, a jury.

I am personally acquainted with 3 separate individuals, who have all been convicted of a degree of Murder. All three of them had been drinking champagne at a wedding. They all drove themselves away from the receptions, and all were involved in fatality accidents. Additionally, each one had also previously received sentences for drinking and driving. Two of them were under the drinking age at the time of their deadly crash, one was much older. The oldest one received a conviction of 1st Degree Murder and a Life sentence. Another received a 25-year prison sentence for 2nd Degree Murder. And the third received 5 years in prison, and 15 years on probation for 2nd Degree Murder. All three of them had previous drinking and driving history, all three of them were drinking at a wedding and then drove away under the influence, and all three caused a crash that resulted in the death of another human. Interestingly, the one who received the most favorable sentence also spent the most money on an attorney.

Why is so much inconsistency tolerated? Should the older one have received a harsher sentence because he was old enough to "know better"? Fair point, but not legally legitimate because age is not an element of the crime of murder, and therefore should not be a factor. Another illegitimate factor that is often considered by the state is what the victim or the victim's family wants to see happen to the defendant, yet you will not find that element in any jury instruction. I know that might sting if you have been the victim of a crime, but the truth has to sting you before it can change your mind. The fact of the matter is, the moment the state allows the wishes of an emotionally distraught victim to influence criminal procedure, you have exited justice and transitioned into vengeance. Now you are carrying out revenge upon a defendant because the victim is upset. But I will address a victim's involvement in the judicial process at a later time, after you are over being mad at me about the current topic.

Since my standard for the truth of life is the Word of God as it is written in the bible, I will measure our current processes against the procedures detailed in scripture. Please always keep in mind that the full context of the bible is that God created mankind to enjoy relationship with Him. God created natural systems and cycles, and consequences for actions are built in, not a result of His wrath. He poured His wrath against sin out on Jesus, for all humans. And since God is Just, HE cannot punish two people for the same crime. Therefore, God does not punish us for our sins anymore. However, He did explain to us the natural consequences that accompany our wrong actions. So what is His standard for murder? Since we live in the belt buckle of the "bible belt" lets see if we are congruent with the God we claim to follow.

Numbers 35 gives God's decrees concerning how we should handle a death caused by another person. He listed only two opposing criteria for determining the difference between Murder and Manslaughter: intentional killing and accidental killing. All deaths caused by another ALL fall into those two categories. If you do it with hate in your heart, it is murder. If you do it accidentally, it is manslaughter, period. There may not have been vehicles back then, so conditions for drunk driving were unheard of, but alcohol was a thing. So, if a drunk person throws a stone and accidentally kills his neighbor, with no hate in his heart, has he committed murder or manslaughter? It's that simple. If a person intentionally drinks alcohol and then intentionally gets behind the wheel of a vehicle, then accidentally causes an accident that kills a person, have they committed murder or manslaughter? The word accident literally means not intentional. Why have we complicated this?

Numbers 35 goes even further to describe the lengths we are to go to in protecting an individual who accidentally kills another person, because God knew how hot a human heart can become. We naturally want those who have wronged us to "pay". But I also "naturally" want to eat Dorito's without health consequences, so just because we naturally want things does not mean they are right or beneficial. (Listen, I'm reading this right out of the Book. These are not my opinions; this is a standard that I have adopted as Truth and is also the acclaimed standard referenced passionately by our legislatures.)

The only part of this that is problematic for me is that we don’t have the ability to know what is in another person's heart. However, I believe this is the reason for the Cities of Refuge outlined in Numbers 35. The point I can surmise is that nobody's life can remain the same after a death that is caused by another person. Somone is responsible for taking that life in these circumstances, and their life will never be the same again. In this passage, they are warned to physically move their entire family and life to a designated city, for their own safety, because the victim's family has a right to be angry. But notice that this rule about "hate in their heart" would also apply to them; God instructed the public to go to great lengths to protect the killer and ensure the victim's family did not also kill with hate in their heart. Notice how God did not allow the anger of the victim's family affect the outcome of justice. Because as I have stated previously, Justice is not on a side. When the state brings a case against a defendant, justice is not automatically on the side of the state! Justice is its own side, because both sides of an argument can be wrong at the same time. We should be carful when we invite Justice into our situation because it has the function of measuring us too, even when we think we are right.

In conclusion, the answer here is incredibly simple. Don't bring a murder charge against somebody who did not intentionally murder. Away with these degrees of Murder. A murder happens at the hands of a person who intentionally carries it out, with "malice aforethought". If that did not occur, then don’t charge them with Murder. Okay, but what about all these other wild and crazy circumstances that are more difficult to define? Stop. The death of a person either 1) happens at the hands of a person who intentionally sets out to murder, or 2) is an accident, and is not carried out by a person who intentionally wanted to cause the death. It is really that simple. How do we fix this? Our legislature has the constitutional ability to modify our legal codes, or in this case simplify them.

VICTIMS: The truth is, we have all been the victims of something. It is natural to experience emotions because of situations that arise. We were created with emotions. We want them in the car with us, but they should not be driving the car. I am very sorry if that offends you, and I have found that the words I recoil from most are the words that have the power to shift my perspective. Some of you reading this have been victimized by other humans, and they are behind bars right now….and you are still mad at them. We call that "justice" but how can it be just when you wanted to see them punished, but found to relief from the trauma when they were incarcerated? True Justice is charting a course for the recovery of internal things that were lost and broken when you were hurt. The fact is, you can recover even if nobody ever goes to jail for what they did to you. They do not have that much power over you. Should they be removed from society so they can be rehabilitated and not hurt anyone again? Yes! But that process has no effect on what happens on the inside of you. Because here is another hard truth: that person who you wanted to suffer because of what they did, might just go to prison and be changed into another person on the inside. So, do we have a right to punish someone whose heart and intentions have been transformed?