Sanhendrin 3:7
Should internal court deliberations be public or secret?
讙诪专讜 讗转 讛讚讘专, 讛讬讜 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讗讜转谉. 讛讙讚讜诇 砖讘讚讬谞讬诐 讗讜诪专, 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讗转讛 讝讻讗讬, 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讗转讛 讞讬讘. 讜诪谞讬谉 诇讻砖讬爪讗 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讚讬谞讬诐 诇讗 讬讗诪专, 讗谞讬 诪讝讻讛 讜讞讘专讬 诪讞讬讘讬谉 讗讘诇 诪讛 讗注砖讛 砖讞讘专讬 专讘讜 注诇讬, 注诇 讝讛 谞讗诪专 (讜讬拽专讗 讬讟, 讟讝) 诇讗 转诇讱 专讻讬诇 讘注诪讬讱, 讜讗讜诪专 (诪砖诇讬 讬讗, 讬讙) 讛讜诇讱 专讻讬诇 诪讙诇讛 住讜讚.
Once the [judges] reached a verdict they would bring in [the defendant]. The senior judge would say, 鈥淢r. Doe, you are innocent,鈥� or, 鈥淢r. Doe, you are guilty.鈥� What is the source [for the practice] that when one of the judges goes out [of the court] he must not say, 鈥淚 exonerated [you] but my colleagues found you guilty; what can I do since they are in the majority?鈥� Regarding this it says (Lev. 19:16), 鈥淒o not go talebearing among your people,鈥� and it says (Prov. 11:13), 鈥渢he talebearer reveals a secret.鈥�
Comments
Rabbinic law does not use peer juries, but rather relies on courts of sages. The smallest court consists of three judges. Ancient Jewish cities maintained courts of twenty-three judges. In Jerusalem, the great Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges ruled on matters of national significance. All courts had an odd number of judges to prevent a deadlock. Although unanimous opinions were not required (indeed a unanimous opinion to execute a criminal was considered suspect), our Mishnah indicates that the internal deliberations of the court were considered secret.
Questions
- Does this Mishnah imply that all court deliberations are to be kept secret, or only the actual vote record?
- According to this text, a judge must defend a verdict that he himself opposed. What are the positive and negative consequences of such a policy?
- Does the public have a right to know what arguments were used in finding a verdict, even if the identity of the voters is kept secret?
