Jury Can't Use Bible in Death Penalty Case?

[no1tovote4]

It's not how I'm reading this, from the

You are reading an opinion piece and I am speaking of the decision written directly by the CO Supreme Court, which I posted previously, where they specifically cited the verse. That the Bible was in the room was not the singularly most important aspect, that the verse directed the Death Penalty was and that was the reason that the Penalty portion of the Deliberations was overturned. It would not have mattered if the Bible were in the room or not, only that they used a verse that directed a specific action. They could have read many portions of the Bible without violating this particular thing, but the verse they chose was specifically at cause for the overturning of the Death Penalty.

There is also the fact that in one case they overturned a Death Penalty because the Jury consulted a Dictionary as well. It was not the Bible specifically that was at issue, it was that the Jury was continuing the trial in the Jury room by accepting testimony and investigating using outside sources which they were directed not to do.

 

[Zhukov]

I don't really have the time to read through this whole thread.

I posted that article and link and when I checked back there were four pages of replies. I guess that's a good thing.

What I did read however suggests to me some people seem to be misunderstanding what happened.

A person was tried and convicted in a completely legal fashion. That is not in question. The jurors, in deciding guilt did not consider unpresented evidence or biblical passages.

After the conviction the jurors, because the defendant committed a capital offense, were ordered to consider punishment: life or death.

That decision is not a decision based on legal precendent or written law, it is arrived at by a concensus of opinion of the jurors. That's why it is a responsibility given to jurors and not the judge. A judge cannot sentence death without the jury's recommendation.

If they decide, based on their opinions and beliefs, that what the defendant did (and he did do it, he is now convicted) warrants the death penalty, they recommend the death penalty.

This ruling says you cannot consider certain opinions or beliefs. Well how are people supposed to make that sort of decision? Flip a coin?

If one is a religious person, shouldn't one try to figure out what one's religion says about the circumstances under consideration? I don't see why one wouldn't. I don't see why one shouldn't. Most importantly, according to this decision, I don't understand why one can't.

That doesn't make much sense to me. That doesn't sound legal to me. It sounds like they are enforcing a thoughtcrime in that certain lines of reasoning are off limits. One cannot consider certain things.

What do you do with the people who have their scripture memorized?

And does it matter that it is perfectly possible that two people could read the same book, the very same passages, and come to two different conclusions about what course of action should be taken?

What are people supposed to do to make this sort of decision? Honestly?

 

[dilloduck]

I don't really have the time to read through this whole thread.

I posted that article and link and when I checked back there were four pages of replies. I guess that's a good thing.

What I did read however suggests to me some people seem to be misunderstanding what happened.

A person was tried and convicted in a completely legal fashion. That is not in question. The jurors, in deciding guilt did not consider unpresented evidence or biblical passages.

After the conviction the jurors, because the defendant committed a capital offense, were ordered to consider punishment: life or death.

That decision is not a decision based on legal precendent or written law, it is arrived at by a concensus of opinion of the jurors. That's why it is a responsibility given to jurors and not the judge. A judge cannot sentence death without the jury's recommendation.

If they decide, based on their opinions and beliefs, that what the defendant did (and he did do it, he is now convicted) warrants the death penalty, they recommend the death penalty.

This ruling says you cannot consider certain opinions or beliefs. Well how are people supposed to make that sort of decision? Flip a coin?

If one is a religious person, shouldn't one try to figure out what one's religion says about the circumstances under consideration? I don't see why one wouldn't. I don't see why one shouldn't. Most importantly, according to this decision, I don't understand why one can't.

That doesn't make much sense to me. That doesn't sound legal to me. It sounds like they are enforcing a thoughtcrime in that certain lines of reasoning are off limits. One cannot consider certain things.

What do you do with the people who have their scripture memorized?

And does it matter that it is perfectly possible that two people could read the same book, the very same passages, and come to two different conclusions about what course of action should be taken?

What are people supposed to do to make this sort of decision? Honestly?

All I can figure is that we are supposed to pretend that when jurors go into their room with instructions they can turn off their brain. Guess it makes us feel that its unbiased and fair that way

 

[Annie]

I don't really have the time to read through this whole thread.

I posted that article and link and when I checked back there were four pages of replies. I guess that's a good thing.

What I did read however suggests to me some people seem to be misunderstanding what happened.

A person was tried and convicted in a completely legal fashion. That is not in question. The jurors, in deciding guilt did not consider unpresented evidence or biblical passages.

After the conviction the jurors, because the defendant committed a capital offense, were ordered to consider punishment: life or death.

That decision is not a decision based on legal precendent or written law, it is arrived at by a concensus of opinion of the jurors. That's why it is a responsibility given to jurors and not the judge. A judge cannot sentence death without the jury's recommendation.

If they decide, based on their opinions and beliefs, that what the defendant did (and he did do it, he is now convicted) warrants the death penalty, they recommend the death penalty.

This ruling says you cannot consider certain opinions or beliefs. Well how are people supposed to make that sort of decision? Flip a coin?

If one is a religious person, shouldn't one try to figure out what one's religion says about the circumstances under consideration? I don't see why one wouldn't. I don't see why one shouldn't. Most importantly, according to this decision, I don't understand why one can't.

That doesn't make much sense to me. That doesn't sound legal to me. It sounds like they are enforcing a thoughtcrime in that certain lines of reasoning are off limits. One cannot consider certain things.

What do you do with the people who have their scripture memorized?

And does it matter that it is perfectly possible that two people could read the same book, the very same passages, and come to two different conclusions about what course of action should be taken?

What are people supposed to do to make this sort of decision? Honestly?

Z I'm with you. If what No one is saying is really correct, scrap the jury system and have the judge or panel of judges just do their thing. No reason for non-legal training to be involved.

PS I don't believe that, just what the 'ruling' is saying.

 

[no1tovote4]

I don't really have the time to read through this whole thread.

I posted that article and link and when I checked back there were four pages of replies. I guess that's a good thing.

What I did read however suggests to me some people seem to be misunderstanding what happened.

A person was tried and convicted in a completely legal fashion. That is not in question. The jurors, in deciding guilt did not consider unpresented evidence or biblical passages.

After the conviction the jurors, because the defendant committed a capital offense, were ordered to consider punishment: life or death.

That decision is not a decision based on legal precendent or written law, it is arrived at by a concensus of opinion of the jurors. That's why it is a responsibility given to jurors and not the judge. A judge cannot sentence death without the jury's recommendation.

If they decide, based on their opinions and beliefs, that what the defendant did (and he did do it, he is now convicted) warrants the death penalty, they recommend the death penalty.

The problem wasn't their opinion or beliefs, it was that testimony was given in other than the court setting. Read the Decision as written by the Court that I posted earlier.

This ruling says you cannot consider certain opinions or beliefs. Well how are people supposed to make that sort of decision? Flip a coin?

The ruling says nothing of the sort, it says that you cannot consider outside sources of information as that is investigation and not in the Juries purview.

If one is a religious person, shouldn't one try to figure out what one's religion says about the circumstances under consideration? I don't see why one wouldn't. I don't see why one shouldn't. Most importantly, according to this decision, I don't understand why one can't.

If one is a religious person and knows the verse they can certainly use it in their own decision, however using it to change the mind of another is adding information after they had been specifically directed that they could not consider an outside source. The Jurists should have specifically asked the judge for more information, it likely would have been provided along with the necessary inclusion that CO Law did not direct the Death Penalty as the verse specified did and the Death Penalty would not have been overturned.

That doesn't make much sense to me. That doesn't sound legal to me. It sounds like they are enforcing a thoughtcrime in that certain lines of reasoning are off limits. One cannot consider certain things.

It is not certain things, it is all information not provided from the court or that you had with you when you entered as a jurist. You can use the verse to consider your own opinion but providing it for another is directing the Jury, at least according to ruling.

What do you do with the people who have their scripture memorized?

Already been answered previously.

And does it matter that it is perfectly possible that two people could read the same book, the very same passages, and come to two different conclusions about what course of action should be taken?

What are people supposed to do to make this sort of decision? Honestly?

They are supposed to use their knowledge and the facts given at trial in order to come to a decision. They are not allowed to bring any other source of information with them, Dictionaries, Bibles, etc. as they are not the Investigators, they are not allowed to provide testimony or direction to the other jurors using another source either.

 

[sitarro]

sitarro,

Do you live in CO?

I did till 96 . I lived in Denver for 10 years . When I moved there I swore off my Cajun roots and became a Coloradan . I miss it terribly but had to move to Texas to do the work I do , I still feel like a Coloradan though.The move was made a little easier because it was disturbing the hell out of me to see the same asswipe developers that destroyed California , move into Colorado and start the same thing .
In 1978 , I went to Colorado to caddy at the U.S. Open that was played at Cherry Hills in Denver , I fell in love with the place back then . What a difference today . Back then , it was a stunning drive into the country to go to Boulder . Now it is solid development to Boulder .
Colorado was a secret for a long time , I loved that Denver was called a cow town . I saw it start to become like everywhere else with Roy Romer's term as Govenor . I voted against everything while I was there. . . The airport , baseball , etc.. . . It was perfect without all of those things. He brought the many corporate headquarters there with tax breaks and giveaways and was able to brag to the citizens how he was bringing in so many jobs . he neglected to tell the people of the state that the corporations were brigging the people to fill those jobs . Now people from Colorado can't afford
to live there since Southern California has relocated to the state.
Sorry for the long answer , I just hate to see that happen to the place I love.

 

[no1tovote4]

Z I'm with you. If what No one is saying is really correct, scrap the jury system and have the judge or panel of judges just do their thing. No reason for non-legal training to be involved.

PS I don't believe that, just what the 'ruling' is saying.

Personally I think the Jury should be allowed to question witnesses at the trial and other things as well. That their responsibility should allow them to investigate if they find it necessary and that all information that can possibly be gleaned should, especially when working a Death Penalty case.


I speak only of the ruling not of my opinion, that it was not that they used a "Dreaded Bible" it was that they used an outside source for information. There have been attorneys all over the talk radio here citing other times when juries used a Dictionary, the Internet, the newspaper, etc and their decisions were likewise overturned. This is not a specific vendetta against the Bible, it is an attempt to keep Jurists ignorant of anything other than what the Court is providing to them.

 

[freeandfun1]

But nobody would say anthing if it were somebody saying they wouldn't vote for the death penalty because they didn't believe in it. This is hogwash.

 

[dilloduck]

The problem wasn't their opinion or beliefs, it was that testimony was given in other than the court setting. Read the Decision as written by the Court that I posted earlier.



The ruling says nothing of the sort, it says that you cannot consider outside sources of information as that is investigation and not in the Juries purview.


If one is a religious person and knows the verse they can certainly use it in their own decision, however using it to change the mind of another is adding information after they had been specifically directed that they could not consider an outside source. The Jurists should have specifically asked the judge for more information, it likely would have been provided along with the necessary inclusion that CO Law did not direct the Death Penalty as the verse specified did and the Death Penalty would not have been overturned.



It is not certain things, it is all information not provided from the court or that you had with you when you entered as a jurist. You can use the verse to consider your own opinion but providing it for another is directing the Jury, at least according to ruling.


Already been answered previously.



They are supposed to use their knowledge and the facts given at trial in order to come to a decision. They are not allowed to bring any other source of information with them, Dictionaries, Bibles, etc. as they are not the Investigators, they are not allowed to provide testimony or direction to the other jurors using another source either.

next the jurors will have to type to each other so no one puts their own personal EMPHASIS on anything---oooops that won't work either

 

[no1tovote4]

I did till 96 . I lived in Denver for 10 years . When I moved there I swore off my Cajun roots and became a Coloradan . I miss it terribly but had to move to Texas to do the work I do , I still feel like a Coloradan though.The move was made a little easier because it was disturbing the hell out of me to see the same asswipe developers that destroyed California , move into Colorado and start the same thing .
In 1978 , I went to Colorado to caddy at the U.S. Open that was played at Cherry Hills in Denver , I fell in love with the place back then . What a difference today . Back then , it was a stunning drive into the country to go to Boulder . Now it is solid development to Boulder .
Colorado was a secret for a long time , I loved that Denver was called a cow town . I saw it start to become like everywhere else with Roy Romer's term as Govenor . I voted against everything while I was there. . . The airport , baseball , etc.. . . It was perfect without all of those things. He brought the many corporate headquarters there with tax breaks and giveaways and was able to brag to the citizens how he was bringing in so many jobs . he neglected to tell the people of the state that the corporations were brigging the people to fill those jobs . Now people from Colorado can't afford
to live there since Southern California has relocated to the state.
Sorry for the long answer , I just hate to see that happen to the place I love.

Yeah, I am a third Gen. Native of CO. I have had to move several times to get away from the new development, and it looks like it may happen again soon.

 

[Annie]

Personally I think the Jury should be allowed to question witnesses at the trial and other things as well. That their responsibility should allow them to investigate if they find it necessary and that all information that can possibly be gleaned should, especially when working a Death Penalty case.


I speak only of the ruling not of my opinion, that it was not that they used a "Dreaded Bible" it was that they used an outside source for information. There have been attorneys all over the talk radio here citing other times when juries used a Dictionary, the Internet, the newspaper, etc and their decisions were likewise overturned. This is not a specific vendetta against the Bible, it is an attempt to keep Jurists ignorant of anything other than what the Court is providing to them.

I understand No 1. Problem with the ruling, not so much not bringing in outside exhibits, but as some have said, 'leaving their brains' at the door. The whole reason for 'peer juries' is the law can be 'blind', but justice shouldn't be. It's part of the reason for 'community norms.'

 

[deaddude]

But nobody would say anthing if it were somebody saying they wouldn't vote for the death penalty because they didn't believe in it. This is hogwash.

Not quite true, the prosecutor is alowed to srtike jurors based on whether or not they would be willing to sentence a man to death.