This was a difficult decision to make. Both teams made convincing points and obviously worked hard to develop their arguments. The Prosecution and Defense each had strong cases and supporting material, but I ultimately made my decision by judging who best argued for or against the main charge of treason. My vote goes to the Prosecution. One of their main objectives, as described in the opening statement, was to prove that God was not a tyrant. The debate over this question was the deciding factor in my decision. If the Defense could convincingly prove that God was a tyrant, then the act of treason would be warranted. However, I feel that the Prosecution was more successful in proving that God was not a tyrant. In the examination of God, the Prosecution elicited responses pointing to the compassionate and enabling nature of God. A strong point was God's granting of free will to her subjects, which is not characteristic of a tyrant. In their cross-examination, the Defense was unable to prove that God granted this free will for her pleasure alone. Also, in her time on the stand, God described her ultimate plan for "all-in-all" integration in heaven. This plan refuted the Defense's claim that God ruled only for "himself and his factions." The Defense's main argument for God's tyrannical rule was the creation of a new position in heaven, which constituted a "changing of the rules." A strong point from the Defense's examination of Lucifer was that God did not consult anyone when creating this new position. However, in view of God's plan for ultimate reconciliation, I felt this claim did not convincingly prove that God was a tyrant. The Prosecution's argument that Lucifer committed treason by "waging a war against heaven" convinced me more than the Defense's argument that God was a tyrant. The Defense presented strong arguments documenting the establishment of a democracy in hell. They also argued well that the punishment was cruel and extreme for the crime. However, in judging this case, I ultimately examined the arguments concerned with treason, since that was the charge. All discussions of hell and its democracy, however convincing, had little bearing on my decision because they occurred after the act of treason. Good job to both teams! Regardless of my decision, everyone should feel proud for the work that they did on this trial. It was great to watch.
BACK TO COURSE SYLLABUS