The exorcism of Emily Rose???

[Soulforged]

(WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD MAY BE)
Well I must tell that I feel frankly disappointed by this movie. In the beggining I expected something on the lines of "The Exorcist" buffered by better visual effects, but no, everything went down reaching the middle of the film when all turns into religious propaganda, trivialization of science and justice, and why not ridiculous in court (and it wasn't even scary at all). This critic partucullary sums it all up: "While not especially good, The Exorcism of Emily Rose, directed by Scott Derrickson, is still a fascinating cultural document in the age of intelligent design."
-- A.O. Scott, NEW YORK TIMES LINK (notice this is mixed up with an excerpt of various other critics in this page).
I watched this film with some friends, so towards the end, the eternal discussion was menacing with a new appearence "Belief or not belief". The question is of course trivial in my opinion, but I didn't want to discuss such inflamating subject at 4 AM, so I kept it and posted it here.
This brings up my question, and I'll post my opinion if this actually turns into a debate: Is it correct to bring belief, wheter they're religious or not, into a criminal case to generate reasonable doubt? I think that the instictive answer will be a categorical NO. But wheter this is the actual answer or not, please state why is it correct or not.

[KukriKhan]

Is it correct to bring belief, wheter they're religious or not, into a criminal case to generate reasonable doubt?

For example? Even a made-up one? So I/we better understand the question.

[Xiahou]

For example? Even a made-up one? So I/we better understand the question.

Oversimplifiying the movie but, arguing a woman died as a result of demonic posession and not medical neglect.

I thought it was a fairly interesting movie myself. It was about the relevance of beliefs and faith in a skeptical modern world. I had a few problems with the movie, but overall it wasnt bad.

[Soulforged]

For example? Even a made-up one? So I/we better understand the question.

Well in the movie it's like this. The trial begins and the experts talk. The point being that the woman had an species of epilepsia (psychotic epilepsia), he was to take gambrudol, or something like that (the medicine usually prescribed to this cases). The experts state that if the girl took the medicine she would have been fine. But the father recommends that she leaves the medicine, as a result, the expert said, she died. Now the defense, when they didn't have anymore arguements to made, they bring the belief subject up. Trying to present it like science (and there Intelligent Desing culture) they summon a writer. This writer, mostly a mystic, states that she has being studying different cultures around the world, and has learned that this possesions (demoniac) are a common phenomenum. She says that in a possesion the person suffers of an invansion of an outsider's entity granting the host a kind of double personality. Now what she says, being totally unsuported is that the medicine in question will separate and lock the two personalities thus making it imposible for each one to reach the other and also for an outsider to reach the "good" personality and the exorcism will fail. Of course this arguement is notoriously hilarious, but the trial continues nontheless. The next is the father, the counsel puts him to testify and also brings up a tape, in wich the father recorded the supposed exorcism. Now I believed at this point that history and science demostrated that all this cases of demoniac possesions could be explained by natural phenomenums, well it just happens that it wasn't like that, at least for the judge. So the tape ends and the prosecutor refutes all the arguements made by the defense. Finally the father is on the stage again, this time he reads a letter by the hand of the same Emily in wich she states an encounter with heavenly forces, of course the emotional appeal has an effect in the jury, not what I expected (because he is declared guilty). And then the final closure. The prosecutor makes an elegant closing. The defense however again appeals to the emotions (wich is usual I know) and to belief. In short the counsel states that the existence of demons cannot be demonstrated and that the jury cannot base any opinions in base to the non existence, because that generates reasonable doubt (imagine how many cases will not see an end just because someone says that it's the demon's work), she also says that this was not epilepsia refering to the apparent refutation made by the expert in sociology above, wich of course wasn't truth. That's the relevant part.

But if you want to know how it all ended, then he was declared guilty, but seen as the father spent six months of his life in detention then the jury set him free, a wise and just decision, but the important here is the content of all the trial.

*by father I mean the priest.

[Navaros]

If someone was actually possessed by a demon, then it would make all the sense in the world to bring that up in such a trial. If "science" cannot explain the truth of something (as it would not be able to in a genuine case of demon possession), then so be it and it should stop trying to. "Science" is not an all-encompassing concept that can explain everything in the universe (despite what grandisose delusions in the minds of men who think they are all-knowing might tell them).

[ajaxfetish]

I don't have any problem with such things showing up in popular entertainment (as an X-Files fan I enjoy seeing religious or other 'paranormal' explanations for things), but of course the unfalsifiability of demonic possession is no basis for reasonable doubt. Any such argument would be useless in a courtroom, on the basis of Occam's Razor.

I wouldn't expect it to be an issue outside the entertainment industry, but of course stranger things have happened.

Ajax

[Soulforged]

I don't have any problem with such things showing up in popular entertainment (as an X-Files fan I enjoy seeing religious or other 'paranormal' explanations for things), but of course the unfalsifiability of demonic possession is no basis for reasonable doubt. Any such argument would be useless in a courtroom, on the basis of Occam's Razor.
I wouldn't expect it to be an issue outside the entertainment industry, but of course stranger things have happened.

I wouldn't either of course, but did I mentioned that this is based in a real case?

If someone was actually possessed by a demon, then it would make all the sense in the world to bring that up in such a trial. If "science" cannot explain the truth of something (as it would not be able to in a genuine case of demon possession), then so be it and it should stop trying to. "Science" is not an all-encompassing concept that can explain everything in the universe (despite what grandisose delusions in the minds of men who think they are all-knowing might tell them).

I understand from where you are coming Navaros, but it cannot be prooved so it's not science, science is what's done in the Courtroom. All the rest including philosophy is out. It treats with facts, not belief about the facts. It's also true that "science" as you put it, doesn't encompasses all the truth in the world, but it's what the science tries, reach for the useful, reach for the knowledge, and with all the respect, not be delirious about reality or possible realities wich cannot be prooved. If you want a pragmatic arguement then imagine if the defense can always create reasonable doubt stating that, based on the belief of the subject, it's impossible to disprove the existence of demons. If the jury accepts that premise, wich is of course out of science, then any case might end unpunished just because the author states that the Devil was behind his doing all the time forcing him, wich is exactly why improbable statements have no place on Court.

[Navaros]

Soulforged the problem with your idea is that not all things in the universe can be proven or explained by men. Men do not have enough knowledge or intellect to do that, especially when it comes to spiritual matters like demon possession.

Hence, to take the stand that "anything that cannot be proven/disproven by men is invalid" is to bias the case in extremely unusual circumstances (which demon possession would be) and force the verdict into an unjust, "loaded" conclusion. To do that would not be justice. Therefore in the interest of justice, man must accept that he is not all-knowing and something not being provable/disprovable does not automatically invalidate it.

[Kralizec]

Nav, are you suggesting that if a suspect throws the "I was possessed!" argument into the court room, he should go free because we can't disprove the supernatural?

That's just bizarre, even for you.

[Navaros]

What I am saying is that since it is possible that a genuine 100% real demon possession could occur, that concept cannot be dismissed out of hand just because "science" doesn't agree with it.

That is not to say that everyone who claims to have been treating a demon-possessed person should go free. Just that the argument may have merit that needs fair consideration on a case-by-case basis.

[Soulforged]

Soulforged the problem with your idea is that not all things in the universe can be proven or explained by men. Men do not have enough knowledge or intellect to do that, especially when it comes to spiritual matters like demon possession.

We're going to the idealism. Is the same intellect of men that creates alternative universes. Wheter you accept the one you're living on or not, you're still living in this reality where the real objects, real phenomenums and real facts (pardon the pun) in general exist.

Hence, to take the stand that "anything that cannot be proven/disproven by men is invalid" is to bias the case in extremely unusual circumstances (which demon possession would be) and force the verdict into an unjust, "loaded" conclusion.

The problem is that the arguement that creates reasonable doubt should be susceptible of being prooved, anything that includes belief is not, not necessarily religious. In the situation of the testimony, this must be limited to describing the facts. So adding anything that you believe (as a witness) is out of place. Thus the right position will be describing what happened, and not what do you think it was the cause, what should be determined by proof in any case, proof that in this particular case was never presented, and I'm pretty sure that will never be.

What I am saying is that since it is possible that a genuine 100% real demon possession could occur, that concept cannot be dismissed out of hand just because "science" doesn't agree with it.

It's not dismissed out of hand, it has a loose of prestige, that's certain. However is not a simple disagreement on credence. Science, specially natural science, backs it's arguements with proof, if everything we've is belief, we cannot debate the value of truth that they have within, only the moral value if you want, or again be delirious about the infinite possibilities of alternative realities, lives like dreams and daylight illussions, but nothing of that is prooved in the very least.

That is not to say that everyone who claims to have been treating a demon-possessed person should go free. Just that the argument may have merit that needs fair consideration on a case-by-case basis.

But that's exactly the only and singular problem with it. How do you proove a demoniac possesion when every phenomenum that assimilates it's "symptoms" has a definition on science? It must at least be prooved so we can refute.

[ajaxfetish]

Science, specially natural science, backs it's arguements with proof

I think 'proof' is far too strong a word here. I would say 'supporting evidence.'

Ajax