Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem unlawful for a judge to pronounce judgment against the truth that he knows, on account of evidence to the contrary. For it is written (Dt. 17:9): "Thou shalt come to the priests of the Levitical race, and to the judge that shall be at that time; and thou shalt ask of them, and they shall show thee the truth of the judgment." Now sometimes certain things are alleged against the truth, as when something is proved by means of false witnesses. Therefore it is unlawful for a judge to pronounce judgment according to what is alleged and proved in opposition to the truth which he knows.

Objection 2: Further, in pronouncing judgment a man should conform to the Divine judgment, since "it is the judgment of God" (Dt. 1:17). Now "the judgment of God is according to the truth" (Rm. 2:2), and it was foretold of Christ (Is. 11:3,4): "He shall not judge according to the sight of the eyes, nor reprove according to the hearing of the ears. But He shall judge the poor with justice, and shall reprove with equity for the meek of the earth." Therefore the judge ought not to pronounce judgment according to the evidence before him if it be contrary to what he knows himself.

Objection 3: Further, the reason why evidence is required in a court of law, is that the judge may have a faithful record of the truth of the matter, wherefore in matters of common knowledge there is no need of judicial procedure, according to 1 Tim. 5:24, "Some men's sins are manifest, going before to judgment." Consequently, if the judge by his personal knowledge is aware of the truth, he should pay no heed to the evidence, but should pronounce sentence according to the truth which he knows.

Objection 4: Further, the word "conscience" denotes application of knowledge to a matter of action as stated in the 1, Question 79, Article 13. Now it is a sin to act contrary to one's knowledge. Therefore a judge sins if he pronounces sentence according to the evidence but against his conscience of the truth.

On the contrary, Augustine says in his commentary on the Psalter: "A good judge does nothing according to his private opinion but pronounces sentence according to the law and the right." Now this is to pronounce judgment according to what is alleged and proved in court. Therefore a judge ought to pronounce judgment in accordance with these things, and not according to his private opinion.

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1; Question 60, Articles 2,6) it is the duty of a judge to pronounce judgment in as much as he exercises public authority, wherefore his judgment should be based on information acquired by him, not from his knowledge as a private individual, but from what he knows as a public person. Now the latter knowledge comes to him both in general and in particular ---in general through the public laws, whether Divine or human, and he should admit no evidence that conflicts therewith---in some particular matter, through documents and witnesses, and other legal means of information, which in pronouncing his sentence, he ought to follow rather than the information he has acquired as a private individual. And yet this same information may be of use to him, so that he can more rigorously sift the evidence brought forward, and discover its weak points. If, however, he is unable to reject that evidence juridically, he must, as stated above, follow it in pronouncing sentence.

Reply to Objection 1: The reason why, in the passage quoted, it is stated that the judges should first of all be asked their reasons, is to make it clear that the judges ought to judge the truth in accordance with the evidence.

Reply to Objection 2: To judge belongs to God in virtue of His own power: wherefore His judgment is based on the truth which He Himself knows, and not on knowledge imparted by others: the same is to be said of Christ, Who is true God and true man: whereas other judges do not judge in virtue of their own power, so that there is no comparison.

Reply to Objection 3: The Apostle refers to the case where something is well known not to the judge alone, but both to him and to others, so that the guilty party can by no means deny his guilt (as in the case of notorious criminals), and is convicted at once from the evidence of the fact. If, on the other hand, it be well known to the judge, but not to others, or to others, but not to the judge, then it is necessary for the judge to sift the evidence.

Reply to Objection 4: In matters touching his own person, a man must form his conscience from his own knowledge, but in matters concerning the public authority, he must form his conscience in accordance with the knowledge attainable in the public judicial procedure.

Articulus 2

Argumentum 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod iudici non liceat iudicare contra veritatem quam novit, propter ea quae in contrarium proponuntur.

Dicitur enim Deut. XVII, venies ad sacerdotes levitici generis, et ad iudicem qui fuerit in illo tempore, quaeresque ab eis, qui indicabunt tibi iudicii veritatem.

Sed quandoque aliqua proponuntur contra veritatem, sicut cum aliquid per falsos testes probatur.

Ergo non licet iudici iudicare secundum ea quae proponuntur et probantur, contra veritatem quam ipse novit.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, homo in iudicando debet divino iudicio conformari, quia dei iudicium est, ut dicitur Deut. I.

Sed iudicium dei est secundum veritatem, ut dicitur Rom. II, et Isaiae XI praedicitur de christo, non secundum visionem oculorum iudicabit, neque secundum auditum aurium arguet, sed iudicabit in iustitia pauperes, et arguet in aequitate pro mansuetis terrae.

Ergo iudex non debet, secundum ea quae coram ipso probantur, sententiam ferre contra ea quae ipse novit.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, idcirco in iudicio probationes requiruntur ut fides fiat iudici de rei veritate, unde in his quae sunt notoria non requiritur iudicialis ordo, secundum illud I ad Tim. V, quorundam hominum peccata manifesta sunt, praecedentia ad iudicium.

Si ergo iudex per se cognoscat veritatem, non debet attendere ad ea quae probantur, sed sententiam ferre secundum veritatem quam novit.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, nomen conscientiae importat applicationem scientiae ad aliquid agibile, ut in primo habitum est.

Sed facere contra conscientiam est peccatum. Ergo iudex peccat si sententiam ferat, secundum allegata, contra conscientiam veritatis quam habet.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, super psalt., bonus iudex nihil ex arbitrio suo facit, sed secundum leges et iura pronuntiat.

Sed hoc est iudicare secundum ea quae in iudicio proponuntur et probantur. Ergo iudex debet secundum huiusmodi iudicare, et non secundum proprium arbitrium.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, iudicare pertinet ad iudicem secundum quod fungitur publica potestate. Et ideo informari debet in iudicando non secundum id quod ipse novit tanquam privata persona, sed secundum id quod sibi innotescit tanquam personae publicae. Hoc autem innotescit sibi et in communi, et in particulari. In communi quidem, per leges publicas vel divinas vel humanas, contra quas nullas probationes admittere debet. In particulari autem negotio aliquo, per instrumenta et testes et alia huiusmodi legitima documenta, quae debet sequi in iudicando magis quam id quod ipse novit tanquam privata persona. Ex quo tamen ad hoc adiuvari potest ut districtius discutiat probationes inductas, ut possit earum defectum investigare. Quod si eas non possit de iure repellere, debet, sicut dictum est, eas in iudicando sequi.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ideo praemittitur in verbis illis de quaestione iudicibus facienda, ut intelligatur quod iudices debent veritatem iudicare secundum ea quae fuerunt sibi proposita.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod deo competit iudicare secundum propriam potestatem. Et ideo in iudicando informatur secundum veritatem quam ipse cognoscit, non secundum hoc quod ab aliis accipit. Et eadem ratio est de christo, qui est verus deus et homo. Alii autem iudices non iudicant secundum propriam potestatem. Et ideo non est similis ratio.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod apostolus loquitur in casu quando aliquid non solum est manifestum iudici, sed sibi et aliis, ita quod reus nullo modo crimen infitiari potest, sed statim ex ipsa evidentia facti convincitur.

Si autem sit manifestum iudici et non aliis, vel aliis et non iudici, tunc est necessaria iudicii discussio.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod homo in his quae ad propriam personam pertinent, debet informare conscientiam suam ex propria scientia.

Sed in his quae pertinent ad publicam potestatem, debet informare conscientiam suam secundum ea quae in publico iudicio sciri possunt, etc..