quote: 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.
This seems interesting to me, and I would like to here what some of you guys think about this. If someone is on a jury that derives their moral system from the bible, then how can they not help but discuss their reasoning behind why they think the death sentence should or should not apply?
Edit: to add quote
[ March 29, 2005, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: Chaz_King ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Unreal. Another example of activist judges taking separation of church and state the wrong way. What’ll be next?
Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
Hrmmm the question wasn't really one of whether or not the death penalty was moral... they actually used some verses from the book of exodus to show that they thought that murderers should get the death penalty.
The judges reversed the death sentence for the guy saying that other jurors in the room might have been "influenced" by the people who quoted the verses.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: The judges reversed the death sentence for the guy saying that other jurors in the room might have been "influenced" by the people who quoted the verses.
I thought part of what happens was that the jurors discussed the alternative sentences and tried to persuade others to their position. Is that not true?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
the term "Activist Judges" has come to mean any judge that disagrees with the Conservative viewpoint, either by reinterpreting the law or refusing to reinterpritate it (ie. the Judges in the Terri Schaivo case are being called "activist" because they didn't disregard standing state law)
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I have to disagree with you this time, Jay.
In this case, the jurors should not have used Bible verses. They didn't need them anyway, to decide the question - the sentencing was supposed to be decided by the written law of the land, not by personal or moral belief.
Not everyone on the jury probably believed in the authority of the Bible. So it would be like someone telling ME to make a decision based on something written in the Koran or some other book that I personally don't follow or respect.
It is sad that it jeopardized this case entirely. Surely they knew that would happen!
Farmgirl
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: to decide the question - the sentencing was supposed to be decided by the written law of the land, not by personal or moral belief.
How can the written law of the land encompass all the many different variables involved in the crime? Was it premeditated? How violent was it? Was the victim tortured and how much did they suffer?
Truly, I'd like to know how the decision between life in prison and the death sentence can be so black and white that your personal opinions can't be counted.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm not sure how I feel about this one.
Would citing various secular philosophers and/or popular political figures have been equally problematic? I could see how it might be; the jury's decision should be based solely on the evidence they were presented with and the judge's instructions, neh?
If other external sources would have been a problem, then I agree with this ruling. If not, then I want to know why religious sources are somehow worse than non-religious.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Or activist judges trying to legislate from the bench. Like the one in the Schaivo case who seems to be in bed with the right to die crowd allowing a husband who has a new common law wife to be the guardian. Unreal. Or like these judges who seem to be in with the anti religious and ridiculous separation of church and state crowd.
Some people use bible verses in everything they do. Just because someone says that the bibles says eye for an eye as an example as why it’s ok to kill this dork that makes it so he gets off? Nahh…. There’s nothing wrong at all with that. And if someone else would have quoted from the Koran wouldn’t they have discussed it among the members. We don’t know what happened. Maybe it was a Christian who didn’t want to kill the guy and an atheist said the bible says an eye for an eye and got the verse out to show him. Who knows. But it shouldn’t matter. Juries look at reference material all the time. Just because this was the bible is why this was done. Baloney.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Where’s Dag…. I’m very anxious to hear his thoughts and opinions.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Truly, I'd like to know how the decision between life in prison and the death sentence can be so black and white that your personal opinions can't be counted.
Okay zgator -- I wasn't trying to say personal opinion doesn't enter into it. Obviously, my own personal belief would enter in, if I were on a jury deciding this.
However, I wouldn't/shouldn't bring in Bible verses I personally believe in, into the discussion. I can state my opinion as my opinion. (although I wonder if I quoted, by memory, a bible verse -- and it wasn't written down -- would that be cause to throw out the case?)
Especially because I think jurors are warned against brining in outside "references" for a case. So they should know the rules.
Farmgirl
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"I want to know why religious sources are somehow worse than non-religious."
Cuz you're less likely to get stoned for disagreeing with GeorgeCarlin than for disagreeing with Leviticus?
[ March 29, 2005, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
And truly, as someone said above, it doesn't say how these verses were used, and by which side.
If one side was saying "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"
Then the other side might quote Jesus in Matthew 5:38
quote:“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Then it would become a debate over what the Bible says - instead of focusing on the debate of whether what this person did was worthy of the death penalty.
Farmgirl
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
My feelings echo Rivka's. Would the same thing have happened if somebody had quoted an Australian philosopher or politician about whether the death penalty should be applied to murderers? It has as much bearing on the laws of our land as the Old Testament does.
Maybe it's just a knee-jerk reaction on my part, but I am inclined to think that this decision was made because it was a religious text that jurors were taking their cue from. If so, then I agree that this is taking the separation of church and state in the wrong direction. If not, then I have zero problem with it.
I would really like to know the answer to this.
Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
quote: Especially because I think jurors are warned against brining in outside "references" for a case. So they should know the rules.
I can see how this would apply as the quote from the book of exodus is actually where Moses is explaining sentencing for infractions against the law... this to me is almost the same as if I took say Texas' legislation on the death penalty and used it to show why it should be applied in this case. However since the quote was from the Bible, it more than like would hold more sway to the people of the jury than some lawmakers opinions from another state...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yep, that's what Clarence Thomas thinks, Bookwyrm.
edit: here's the quote
quote:I think judicial activism is when you disagree with what the court did.
[ March 29, 2005, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If other external sources would have been a problem, then I agree with this ruling. If not, then I want to know why religious sources are somehow worse than non-religious.
rivka sums up my thoughts very well.
quote:Maybe it's just a knee-jerk reaction on my part, but I am inclined to think that this decision was made because it was a religious text that jurors were taking their cue from. If so, then I agree that this is taking the separation of church and state in the wrong direction. If not, then I have zero problem with it.
That was my initial thought as well, but without further evidence I'm left with the dual response you and rivka have made.
What strikes me as very odd about this is that what went on in the jury room was even considered by the court. Under federal rules of evidence (which don't apply directly here, but are the basis for most state rules), evidence of what was said in a jury room is almost never admissible.
Ah, well. If any outside moral guidance is banned, I'm fine with the principle. Seems to me, though, that if SCOTUS really wants to base 8th amendment analysis on "community standards," then this becomes hard to reject.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Actually, its my understanding that in Colorado people (edit: that is, jurors considering the death penalty) are enjoined to consider their moral convictions, and that the problem in this case wasn't that they were finding morality in the bible, but that they were using it as a legal guide.
[ March 29, 2005, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
crap. Our Exchange Server and our group drives here at work both just crashed.
So I will have to be off Hatrack for awhile and can't follow this discussion until later.
Farmgirl
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Actually, its my understanding that in Colorado people (edit: that is, jurors considering the death penalty) are enjoined to consider their moral convictions, and that the problem in this case wasn't that they were finding morality in the bible, but that they were using it as a legal guide.
Seems like an impossible determination to make. I'll need to track down the decision. Was it consitutionally based or based on Colorado law with regards to sentencing?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think that as I understand the situation this is wrong. There are a number of possible outcomes, all allowed by law, and it is up to the jury to decide teh punishment. They have to be allowed to discuss whatever they feel is necessary to follow their concience, becaue if they are not what is the point of having a jury system at all?
I know that part of being selected for a jury involves being asked about your religious beliefs, sometimes, for the purpose of deciding if you are impartial enough to be on the jury.
As far as the term "activist judges", I think it is completely absurd how often it is used. Usually it is used when a judge rules in favor of changing the law in question...but in the FL ruling, they declined to do so. To be honest, it really wasn't any of our business what happened, the law states he had the right as legal guardian to make those type of decisions. All the crap that happened was an attempt to circumvent the current laws....so in reality, Jeb Bush and crew were the ones attempting to redefine the laws to their view of morality....making them the "activist lawmakers", so to speak.
Kwea
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't think its at all impossible. If, for instance, someone used a religious text which taught all people who wear bow ties deserve to be killed, and used that as a reason for voting for the death penalty for a bow-tie wearer, rather than moral convictions from the same text about the crime, generalized, I think its pretty clear that they were being influenced as to law rather than (just) as to morality.
Here's an article that goes into considerably more depth:
Okay, I'm wondering if the verse quoted wasn't actually just the "eye for an eye" thing. I am almost certain this one gets quoted in every single jury deliberation over the death penalty. I'd REALLY like to know exactly how the bible was used in deliberation. Without that knowledge, it is impossible to fairly judge whether or not this is just an "Activist Judge". It seems more likely to me that what Farmgirl said happened, or possibly that someon said the eye for an eye thing, then someone else quoted another scripture immediately afterward to back that up, than someone standing up and declaring the words of God and stating that this man must die because the bible says so. If the latter happened, then I think the judge did the right thing. If not, I think he overstepped his bounds.
edit: After reading fugu's link, it looks more to like they actually were doing more of the latter...In this case, the judge did nothing wrong.
[ March 29, 2005, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Very good link, Fugu. Thanks for posting it.
quote: To support his ruling, Judge Vigil cited Colorado precedent reversing criminal convictions in a handful of cases where jurors used during deliberations a dictionary, an Internet search, a medical textbook and Black's Law Dictionary despite judicial admonitions against such outside-the-court quest for knowledge. There are plenty of federal cases, too, that make it quite clear that religion in general, and the Bible in particular, has no place in the jury room. Even the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the most conservative federal appeals courts in the country, ruled a few years ago that the Bible couldn't be used to justify the morality of the death penalty
This is what I was trying to say -- that the jurors KNEW that using the bible was going to be not allowed, and in doing so jeapordized the case. That was just not good judgment on their part.
Farmgirl
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I have a question, though. The article says the got a bible and notes on verses and things inside the deliberation room. Okay. I can see how a judge would say no way to that. My question, if they had relied entirely on memory, would the judge have had any grounds for dismissing the ruling?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Harlan's jurors (some of them, anyway) didn't just read the Good Book before they went to sleep in their hotel rooms while sequestered during the case. And they didn't just cite from memory Biblical passages they might have learned earlier in their lives. They brought at least one Bible into the deliberation room itself and also brought "notes with biblical passages concerning the penalty for murder," according to Judge Vigil.
(emphasis mine) That's a good question. I wonder that myself. The writer of this column makes it sound like it wouldn't be as much of an issue if they had spouted them off from memory instead of actually bringing the book in. But hard to know how the judge would actually rule on that...
Farmgirl
[ March 29, 2005, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Boris, from what I've seen - probably not. It was using outside sources to try and influence others that the judge seemed to have a problem with.
I don't have any personal problems with his ruling - especially since other cases had also disallowed outside secular sources. Seems to me the judge acted appropriately.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
FG, I now outsource servers for a living. You folks have trouble, tell them to send me an e-mail and I'll keep you up and running 24/7.
I think what is going on here are people talking past each other, as usual.
To say that decisions on life and death can be or should be free from ones basic moral code is wrong.
But when dealing with the law you have to deal as the law is written. You follow the rules or else you don't.
The requirements for capital punishment according to the old testament are far lower than the requirements under current law in every state. To use the biblical requirements instead of the statuatory ones is basically saying that your religion is the real law of the land, hence creating in fact, a religion of the state.
You can't argue that the "Anaheim Angels" should win every baseball game they play because the bible says the angels are God's messengers and can not be defeated. It would not be fair to the other teams. It would no longer be baseball.
So here, you can not argue that the bible tells us to punish people who do X in a certain way, while the law says to punish them in a diffent way.
Suppose that the person in question was a Wiccan, accused of speeding. Would we want a jury to say, "That Witch must be given capital punishment because the bible says "Thous Shalt Not Suffer A Witch To Live" Of course not.
I hope I made my point a bit clear.
I agree, however, that meditation and praying for the wisdom in making your decisions should not only be allowed, but encouraged.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
(thanks, Dan. It turned out to be a DNS server problem. All fixed now)
FG
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So . . . got a pricelist, Dan?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Or activist judges trying to legislate from the bench."
Jay, you're stuck. Kick the needle, will ya? Saying that the Schiavo case has been plagued by "activist judges" is, in particular, some of the most egregious revisionism I've ever heard.
You appear to be using the word "activist" to mean "someone who isn't adhering to my particular form of the Christian faith," which is really, really silly.
Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
From the article that Fugu posted I would have to say that courts ruling seems sound based on the fact that they shouldn't have brought the bible or the slips of paper with the verses into the deliberation room.
Interesting stuff. Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Rivka - no outside sources (or research) are supposed to be used by members of a jury (at least in California, and I can't see how that would be different in Colorado - it's a common standard). Just today on the local news, it was mentioned that a juror in a high-profile (defendant used to be a member of the local media) molestation case was admonished by the judge because he had looked up the definitions of some legal tems in a law dictionary and carried the definitions into the courtroom with him. He wasn't dismissed from the jury, but he could easily have been. So, it seems to me that it wouldn't have been any different if the material used in the Colorado case had been a secular book.
In the Colorado case, I'm fine with the court's ruling, especially after hearing the woman who took the Bible into the jury room interviewed on one of the morning shows earlier today. It sounded to me as if she took it in because another member of the jury represented himself as a Christian but wasn't willing to vote for conviction because the death penalty might be applied. Her purpose in taking the Bible in seemed to be to try to convince him that the Bible allows capital punishment, so as a good Christian the other juror should support the death penalty and vote for conviction. I might have misunderstood her, but that sounded to me like what she was about.
I object to that kind of coercion in any venue, but in a jury room it is even worse, I think. It reminds me of the time when I was still active in the Mormon church and my home teacher kept telling me that I wasn't a good Mormon because I was (and still am) a registered Democrat, representing his own opinion as church policy (which I knew it wasn't). This woman seemed to be trying to influence the other juror by trying to tell him that he wasn't really a good Christian if he didn't support the death penalty. Personally, I don't think anyone has the right to represent their own personal opinion as law or dogma or anything else. It just isn't ethical.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
LittleMissAttitude summed up my position quite nicely.
Whether it was the bible, Sun Tzu's Art of War or the Sunday comics, jurors are not permitted to consider information not presented in the court proceedings.
I'm not sure how much personal expertise would be counted under that guideline - if, for example, a minister started quoting the bible would it still be ruled out-of-bounds and grounds for an appeal?
The Law is (hypothetically) supposed to be removed from outside sources which makes for a bit of a paradox if you argue that the Christian Bible is the source of all morality and by extension Law.
However, by consulting the Bible, it could present the image of using religious authority in handing out sentencing and it is the image of impropriety that must be avoided.
-Trevor
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Now that it's been clarified that an actual Bible was smuggled in, I understand the problem. Outside sources are absolutely not ok.
I just wonder what will happen when some juror who knows chapter and verse by heart starts citing them in deliberations.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Fugu, of course I have a price list, but I won't use Hatrack as a sales tool. Email me if your serious....
though I could explain my time here as sale prospecting...
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
(thanks, Dan. It turned out to be a DNS server problem. All fixed now)![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)