Both the prosecution and the defense presented intelligent and thought-provoking arguments in the matter of Satan and his alleged treason against God's just rule. However, after sorting through paperwork submitted to the jury by both sides of the courtroom and reviewing the videotape of trial footage in conjuntion with my own notes, it is the opinion of this juror that Satan is indeed guilty. I believe that the defense's case rested solely on the argument that God's power is a form of "forced obediance". However, I saw this concept disputed both by God herself and the prosecution. "...I have made him just and right, Sufficient to have stood though free to fall" (66, 3.98-101) "...I formed them free, and free they must remain..." (66, 3.124) The concept of free will seems to counter the forced obediance argument. Also, God readily admitted in court that she would forgive Satan were he to ask for forgiveness. In my eyes, these are not the actions of a tyrant. Satan stated several times in court that he should've been consulted first before Jesus was appointed to his position. The defense also spent some time on this hierarchical point, questioning in their closing argument the validity of Heaven's system of government. (Satan had mentioned several times while on the stand that Hell is governed as a democracy.) Perhaps one could argue that the governing of Heaven would be more just as a democracy. However, I believe that God's gift of free will to her creations minimalizes this point in the grand scheme of things. Ultimately, I believe that God was simply not proven to be unjust. One might even question why Satan expected to be appointed into Jesus' position. Was some agreement made between God and Satan that we are all unaware of? I find in favor of the prosecution. Satan is guilty as charged.
BACK TO COURSE SYLLABUS