> 1.What kind of situation was this law intended to promote or to prevent? The right to fair trial
But the process set out to determine "guilt" is not a fair process or a fair trial. Modern society has arrived at several principles that are important to ensuring trials are as fair as possible. They were arrived at through hundreds of years of trial and error and legal debate. God did not provide this information, instead commanding people to follow an absurd spectacle that is unlikely to come to a reasonable conclusion.
> the wrongness of false testimony
But God does not demonstrate the wrongness of false testimony in a reasonable way. He says that someone falsely claiming to be a virgin should be stoned to death, while someone falsely claiming their wife isn't a virgin should be fined 100 shekels and be barred from ever getting a divorce. The punishments are unequal, unfair, and nonsensical.
> presentation of objective evidence
But the objective evidence he tells people to use is seriously flawed and is not reasonable evidence of the thing in question. Whether there is blood on a sheet tells us nothing about whose blood it is or how it got there. Evidence of a sheet with no blood on it is even more ridiculous to present as evidence. A person can obviously be a virgin without an intact hymen, can have sex without rupturing the hymen, or can rupture their hymen without any blood getting on any particular sheet.
God is for some reason setting up a ridiculous kangaroo court relying on unreasonable evidence that could result in a person being stoned to death. It is inconceivable to me that a supreme being could command something that is so obviously unreasonable and idiotic. I would suspect that if a book were written by a supreme being it wouldn't contain anything that seemed ok at the time but that humans would later go on to conclusively refute. Such content would be expected from a man made book however. Do you think my reasoning here makes sense?