Death sentence by jury that discussed Bible thrown out

[Freedom_from_Chains]

Bet this is not going to go over well with the freepers. Fortunatly the Colorado Suprems are willing to make an effort to declare that America is not a theocracy.

DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- Ruling that juries cannot turn to the Bible for advice during deliberations, a divided Colorado Supreme Court threw out the death penalty for a convicted murderer because jurors discussed Bible verses.

(snip)

Defense attorney Kathleen Lord, arguing before the state Supreme Court last month, said the jurors had gone outside the law. "They went to the Bible to find out God's position on capital punishment," she said.

Prosecutors countered, saying jurors should be allowed to refer to the Bible or other religious texts during deliberations.

And if we were a theocracy that would be true, however, since we aren't, in spite of much effort today to make us such, you loose.

(con't) http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/29/bible.deliberations.ap/index.html

[fertilizeonarbusto]

1. I love it

I guess they missed the part where "God's Only Son" was executed...

[OneBlueSky]

2. if the judge hadn't ruled that way, I wonder if the jury would have . . .

recommended death by stoning . . .

[rkc3]

3. Lewis Black calls separation of church and state the tough shit law.

Unfortunately, we'll see the Constitution shredded at Enron in a few months and that ideal will be thrown out the window.

[eallen]

4. This actually has nothing to do with religion!

If the jurors had referred to a John Grisham novel during their deliberations, the appeal would have gone the same. During deliberations, jurors are supposed to determine findings of fact according to statutory criteria. They are not supposed to use outside criteria in reaching their decision, whether a mystery novel, the latest copy of Harpers, the Koran, or notes from their freshman ethics course.

Regardless of where we stand on these religious issues, I think it's important not to let the media spin a question as religious, when really it isn't.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

6. Ok, using the Bible as an authoritative source

would not have anything to do with religion. And that would be true because?

[eallen]

8. Because the jurors had sworn to use something else for their purpose.

The legal issue is not that they used a Bible, but that they used anything other than the statutory criteria. The issue would have been the same if they had used a John Grisham novel.

Let me give you another legal example. Suppose someone is charged with murder, on the grounds that he bludgeoned someone to death with a blunt instrument. If that blunt instrument turns out to have been a heavy Bible with wood and leather cover, does that make the charge a religious issue?

In both cases, the problem is that the people involved deviated from their legal obligation. In the first case, the jurors deviated from their obligation to determine findings according to statute, which resulted in their penalty being overturned. In the second case, the fellow deviated from his legal obligation to refrain from bashing people to death.

These are religious issues only if your view of religion is that it necessarily conflicts with laws against murder, or laws requiring jurors to follow statute in making their decisions. In some circumstances, there will be a conflict, and that will be the case. But do you really think that was the case here? Would these jurors have reached a different decision had they merely followed the statute? Probably not. Unfortunately, they decided not to follow the judge's instructions, but to go their own way.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

9. The legal\factual issue is :

“The legal issue is not that they used a Bible, but that they used anything other than the statutory criteria. The issue would have been the same if they had used a John Grisham novel.”

And I agree with you here, that the legal issue is not that they used the bible, but is that they used anything other than the statutory criteria. However, the factual issue here is that they did use the bible, not a John Grisham novel, or Harold Robbins, or any other author for that matter but the bible, which is the centerpiece and central authority for the Christian religion.

I.E. they brought their religious beliefs into the proceedings; in fact they wrote verses down that they thought were appropriate as guidance, as was highlighted in the courts opinion:

Juror Eaton-Ochoa took notes on two passages. The first was Leviticus 24:20-21:3 "racture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him. And whoever kills an animal shall restore it, but whoever kills a man shall be put to death.” The second was Romans 13:1: "et every soul be subject to the governing authorities for there is no authority except from God and the authorities that exist are appointed by God."

Juror Eaton-Ochoa brought a Bible into the jury room Saturday morning when deliberations resumed. Other jurors testified that more than one juror brought in a Bible, and that one of the Bibles present contained a study index with which a reader could locate passages on particular subjects. Jurors Eaton-Ochoa and Trujillo also brought their notes on biblical passages into the jury room. Juror Eaton-Ochoa showed juror Cordova the Bible text from Leviticus commanding the death penalty for murder, as well as the Romans text. By noon that day, the jury returned a unanimous verdict imposing the death penalty on Harlan.

So let’s continue our analysis with keeping our focus on what did happen. Not what could of happen, or might of happen, or should have happen, but what factually did happen.

They brought their bibles in to use as ancillary guidance as to what would be the appropriate course of action in determining this particular individuals punishment, which as we have already discovered is statutorily prohibited. So let’s further ask the question as to why the law would prohibit them from doing such. Let’s see, could it be because we don’t use our bibles or our individual religions in making legal decisions? And why don’t we use them to make such decisions? Maybe because we are prohibited from doing such by the separation of church and state provision of the Constitution? That to do such would be commingling church and state thereby making the use of religion in this proceeding an issue?

“But do you really think that was the case here? Would these jurors have reached a different decision had they merely followed the statute?”

Maybe, maybe not, my abilities at predicting alternative realities has never been all that good. Maybe they would have come to the same conclusion if they left their bibles at home, but since that is not what they did, see we’re back to that factual thing again, we will never know.

Which if they had of wanted to put this man to death, it’s too bad they didn’t follow the law and leave the good book at home because his other attempt to have the decision overturned failed and the punishment would have stuck if the jurors had of followed the law.

Hell, for all I know maybe the people who brought the bibles in didn’t really want to put this guy to death, but determined they was no way they were going to convince the other jurors to go along, so they brought their bibles in knowing that when it was discovered their decision would get overturned on appeal. If I allow myself to stray from the facts and play what-if, I can come up with all kinds of alternative endings to the case.

[eallen]

11. The jury isn't supposed to be making legal decisions at all.

The jury is supposed to be a trier of facts. I don't know the criteria in the particular statute by which the death penalty is administered, but the problem in this case is precisely that the jury decided not to determine whether those criteria were met as a matter of fact, but deciced instead to make a legal decision, i.e., what criteria should be used to determine capital punishment. Under our legal system, the legislature, not the jury, is supposed to specify those criteria. The courts are supposed to interpret them. The juries are supposed to determine what the facts are. By bringing in outside law, this jury usurped the role of the legislature.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

13. I with that I would agree with you.

[eallen]

14. I wish I could parse your comment. ;-)

[Freedom_from_Chains]

15. I will certainly look into that.

[ktowntennesseedem]

5. This really troubles me.

Oh, I'm delighted in the decision itself; any good church-state separationist would be. But I worry over the 3-2 decision, which is indicative of the divide in the country. It's a loss for the theocratic gang, which will merely fuel their angry rhetoric, but it's only a narrow loss which will excite them further and think they are just barely in the minority. They will look at this as a godless court ruling against God, and spur them on to even more extreme talk and action.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

7. You have a point

They have already been incited to believe, and with these people it's all about belief, that we have an issue of judicial tyranny in the country. This could add fuel to the fire.

For a group that adamantly advocates the rule of law, it is unfortunate they don't know anything about the rule of law.

[ktowntennesseedem]

10. Ironic, isn't it?

I guess all things being equal, I'm glad the court ruled as it did. A person of faith will naturally and understandably bring that faith with them into the jury deliberation room; it is a part of who they are. But to use their faith, instead of a debate of the evidence, to influence fellow jurors is wrong. And the religious right who are so defensive over this decision will fight and complain no matter what.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

12. And that will always be true

One is never going to separate themselves completely from their core values, or as some like to call it beliefs. Somewhat like journalists are suppose to be completely non-bias in their writing, and which I am sure good journalists always try to do, they are never going to be completely non-bias, that is just not our nature.

However, to bring a bible into the deliberation room and quote chapter and verse, is just too blatant, and so action has to be taken.

[jmcon007]

16. Jesus personally VOIDED "eye for an eye", they don't tell you that

Jesus said "Men of old (Old Testament) say an "eye for an eye", but I say if a man strike you on one cheek...."

You will never find a right winger quoting this from Jesus. This is the part of "grace" that Bush and the neonuts don'y accept.