Jury Can't Use Bible in Death Penalty Case?

[HorhayAtAMD]

Why do you think this is an attack against Christianity? "Eye for an eye" is Old testament - Jewish stuff. "Turn the other cheek" was more Jesus's style. This is blatant anti-semitism!!! It is an attack against Judaism!!

All joking aside, I read this story in the paper today and my first thought was that if jurors are not allowed to use their judgement and had to 100% follow the law, then why use common people as jurors? Why not restrict jury duty to lawyers? What is "reasonable doubt" about if not asking a juror, in their judgement, whether or not they are personally convinced of the guilt or innocence of the accused? The people who have brought up the "law" in this regard may be technically correct but it sounds impossible to me to ask a human being to make a judgement call without using their personal judgement, even if that personal judgement is based on biblical, torah, quoran, or Holy Book of Marijuana beliefs. :scratch:

 

[dilloduck]

Why do you think this is an attack against Christianity? "Eye for an eye" is Old testament - Jewish stuff. "Turn the other cheek" was more Jesus's style. This is blatant anti-semitism!!! It is an attack against Judaism!!

All joking aside, I read this story in the paper today and my first thought was that if jurors are not allowed to use their judgement and had to 100% follow the law, then why use common people as jurors? Why not restrict jury duty to lawyers? What is "reasonable doubt" about if not asking a juror, in their judgement, whether or not they are personally convinced of the guilt or innocence of the accused? The people who have brought up the "law" in this regard may be technically correct but it sounds impossible to me to ask a human being to make a judgement call without using their personal judgement, even if that personal judgement is based on biblical, torah, quoran, or Holy Book of Marijuana beliefs. :scratch:

 

[Annie]

Once again, you cannot. Specifically in the opinion put out by the Court it was the text of the verse that was not allowed. In effect the Juror testified in the case but not in court, it simply is not allowed. Even if the Juror were quoting from Memory the same problem exists.

It would be the same with any other reference material, memorized or otherwise. If a Doctor were on a Jury in a Medical case they could not give information to the jury that was not put into evidence regardless of how salient to the case it may be. Jurists cannot testify, nor are they investigators. They are not allowed to investigate, try, testify, or any other thing. They are only allowed to make decisions based on given testimony and evidence.

Looks like the memorized verse would be ok:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2788940,00.html

Book, not faith, broke court rules

By Eric Gorski
Denver Post Staff Writer

In deciding whether a person convicted of a heinous crime deserves life behind bars or death, Colorado jurors are instructed to examine their morals, a high- stakes bout of soul-searching that for many people rests on a foundation of faith.

But according to the Colorado Supreme Court, there's an important distinction between reciting Scripture verses from memory in the jury room and bringing in a Bible that never was admitted into evidence.

In a divided ruling, the state's highest court upheld a lower court's decision that Robert Harlan's sentence should be reduced from death to life in prison because jurors consulted an improper outside influence - the Bible - in unanimously voting him onto death row.

To some observers, Monday's ruling is yet another attempt to wrest faith out of the public square.

Other legal experts say the Harlan decision is not a religious-freedom case but a far less passionate discourse on the rules of evidence...

 

[Merlin1047]

Boy a couple of you folks are a bit scary on this issue. Courts are the domain of the law of man. Now many of these laws have biblical teaching as their foundation, but that is irrelevant. Jesus instructed "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". I believe that admonition applies when you accept jury duty. You now have an obligation to apply the laws of the state.

People should keep in mind that jury duty is an obligation to listen to the facts of the case and come to a decision based on those facts and the LAW - not the Bible. People should also keep in mind that being a juror is simply that - it does not mean that one is entitled to play God.

Let's say that I stole a cow, killed it and ate it. I'm brought to trial and the prosecutor stacks the jury with twelve Hindus. Would I be a bit nervous? You bet your ass I would.

The jury room is a place to apply the ethical and moral principles of honesty and compassion learned from the Bible. But it is not the place to apply biblical teachings to the sentencing process.

 

[dilloduck]

Boy a couple of you folks are a bit scary on this issue. Courts are the domain of the law of man. Now many of these laws have biblical teaching as their foundation, but that is irrelevant. Jesus instructed "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". I believe that admonition applies when you accept jury duty. You now have an obligation to apply the laws of the state.

People should keep in mind that jury duty is an obligation to listen to the facts of the case and come to a decision based on those facts and the LAW - not the Bible. People should also keep in mind that being a juror is simply that - it does not mean that one is entitled to play God.

Let's say that I stole a cow, killed it and ate it. I'm brought to trial and the prosecutor stacks the jury with twelve Hindus. Would I be a bit nervous? You bet your ass I would.

The jury room is a place to apply the ethical and moral principles of honesty and compassion learned from the Bible. But it is not the place to apply biblical teachings to the sentencing process.

Interestingly enough witnesses may swear on a Bible to give them some sort of holy affirmation that they will tell the truth. Why do the courts invite God into their procedings yet tell him to get out of the jury room?

 

[Merlin1047]

Interestingly enough witnesses may swear on a Bible to give them some sort of holy affirmation that they will tell the truth. Why do the courts invite God into their procedings yet tell him to get out of the jury room?

Dillo, I don't believe that swearing on the Bible is done these days. If memory serves, that went out about twenty years ago. Although it is possible that the practice may still exist in some local or state courts.

But of what value is swearing on the Bible if you have an atheist, or a Bhuddist, or a Hindu or a moslem with his hand on it?

 

[Mr. P]

Interestingly enough witnesses may swear on a Bible to give them some sort of holy affirmation that they will tell the truth. Why do the courts invite God into their procedings yet tell him to get out of the jury room?

You pretty much answered your own question dillo. "witnesses may swear on a Bible"
but it's not a court requirement and in the great scheme of things means nothing regarding the facts in the case.

 

[Shattered]

Dillo, I don't believe that swearing on the Bible is done these days. If memory serves, that went out about twenty years ago. Although it is possible that the practice may still exist in some local or state courts.

But of what value is swearing on the Bible if you have an atheist, or a Bhuddist, or a Hindu or a moslem with his hand on it?

IMO, no difference.. You're only swearing to tell the truth.. No different than swearing on a peanut.

 

[dilloduck]

Dillo, I don't believe that swearing on the Bible is done these days. If memory serves, that went out about twenty years ago. Although it is possible that the practice may still exist in some local or state courts.

But of what value is swearing on the Bible if you have an atheist, or a Bhuddist, or a Hindu or a moslem with his hand on it?

It's still done in many courts although it is optional---my only point is that this practice gives validity to what is in the book. A court allows this book to be used as affirmation of honesty and the jury is supposed to be impressed by the testimont given. It doesn't matter whose hand is on it--Christians believe that the person is will not risk lying to avoid the wrath of God.

just a minor example of what I feel to be a system in dire need of an overhaul. Law only works if a majority of people respect it and then obey it voluntarily. When in gets hypocrtical,bizaarre and absurd it's less effective in providing the desired results. Voluntary obedience.

 

[Shattered]

Here, it's just "Please raise your right hand.. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth.....blah blah blah". No book in sight.

 

[no1tovote4]

If you don't want to serve on a jury , which I completely understand , it isn't very difficult to be disqualified . I believe that if you are an informed individual with a brain , one of the attorneys will get rid of you .
I was in a jury pool in Colorado for a felony menacing case . The charge was felony menacing with a gun .When the defense attorney questioned us as to whether we had ever been threatened before , my hand went up . He asked me to elaborate . I told them that I was shown a 45 caliber handgun on highway 36 going to Boulder . He asked me how I felt at the time . I told him I felt threatened then looked at the defendent and said "menaced!" I was gone after that , the attorney couldn't get rid of me quick enough. :2guns:

sitarro,

Do you live in CO?

 

[freeandfun1]

Merlin, what Jesus said, in Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17 and Luke 20:25, was "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." This was in response to a question by the Pharisees about whether it was right to pay taxes. If we follow your logic, you can no longer complain about taxes.

 

[no1tovote4]

Merlin, what Jesus said, in Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17 and Luke 20:25, was "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." This was in response to a question by the Pharisees about whether it was right to pay taxes. If we follow your logic, you can no longer complain about taxes.

The difference is the Government is ourselves. Taxes are levied on ourselves by our votes for Representative government. If we lived in a Roman Empire then the admonition would require we pay to Ceasar what was owed, not that we couldn't complain about it. This like many other things in the Bible can be taken to mean many different things, but mostly it is an admonition to obey the law.

Job consistently complained about the things that were happening to him, even while he rendered to his God the things that were his to render. It certainly didn't preclude some disavowel of his right to complain about his lot in life.

 

[no1tovote4]

Looks like the memorized verse would be ok:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2788940,00.html

Except in the text of the ruling it specifically was against the text used, not that it had been read. This opinion piece has ignored that particular thing. It would not have mattered that it was read or recited it mattered that it directed an action that was not required by law, the law allowed them to choose between life w/no parole or death the verse only allows for one conclusion.

The Court ruled that the verses used directed a Death Penalty while CO law does not direct such a thing and that it may have directed a decision for the juror in question. Thus the Juror who read the verse was giving incorrect Jury instruction. The decision would have been the same had it been discovered that the text was recited.

 

[freeandfun1]

The difference is the Government is ourselves. Taxes are levied on ourselves by our votes for Representative government. If we lived in a Roman Empire then the admonition would require we pay to Ceasar what was owed, not that we couldn't complain about it. This like many other things in the Bible can be taken to mean many different things, but mostly it is an admonition to obey the law.

Job consistently complained about the things that were happening to him, even while he rendered to his God the things that were his to render. It certainly didn't preclude some disavowel of his right to complain about his lot in life.

Yes, I thought about this a bit after I posted it and you are right.

As I pointed out in an article (that surprisingly, nobody has commented on) the court instructed the jurors to use "the knowledge gained in life to help them form their decision". To me, that contradicts what others are saying about how you cannot use your personal knowledge when sitting on a jury.

 

[freeandfun1]

The jury in a previous note asked whether "jurors' personal knowledge, such as developmental psychology, social learning, and abnormal personality can be used" in their deliberations.

In reply, Sand told the panel to draw on "all of the knowledge, training, education, and experience you have acquired during your lifetime" but instructed them to "base your decision only on evidence presented, using your knowledge and experience to weigh that evidence."

In his original instructions last week, Sand said, "your decision on the question of punishment is a uniquely personal judgment which the law, in the final analysis, leaves up to each of you."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=260480&postcount=138

 

[no1tovote4]

Yes, I thought about this a bit after I posted it and you are right.

As I pointed out in an article (that surprisingly, nobody has commented on) the court instructed the jurors to use "the knowledge gained in life to help them form their decision". To me, that contradicts what others are saying about how you cannot use your personal knowledge when sitting on a jury.

You get to use your own personal knowledge but not testify as to that knowledge to the other jurors. Clearly what you know will effect your decision, but you are not allowed to testify as to information for the other jurors.

In the case I watched when I was in my AP Civics class in the 9th grade the Perp was allowed to walk when a Doctor gave information to the other Jurors regarding surgical scarring. The verdict was overturned because the Doctor had Testified and the Jury had investigated; neither of which are they allowed to do. It is important that you use your personal knowledge and experience, but it is not right to continue trying the case in the Jury room.

 

[Bonnie]

Dillo, I don't believe that swearing on the Bible is done these days. If memory serves, that went out about twenty years ago. Although it is possible that the practice may still exist in some local or state courts.

But of what value is swearing on the Bible if you have an atheist, or a Bhuddist, or a Hindu or a moslem with his hand on it?

It is still done a lot of the time however, a person can refuse to do so and simply put their hand up as their word and bond to honesty.

 

[Annie]

Except in the text of the ruling it specifically was against the text used, not that it had been read. This opinion piece has ignored that particular thing. It would not have mattered that it was read or recited it mattered that it directed an action that was not required by law, the law allowed them to choose between life w/no parole or death the verse only allows for one conclusion.

The Court ruled that the verses used directed a Death Penalty while CO law does not direct such a thing and that it may have directed a decision for the juror in question. Thus the Juror who read the verse was giving incorrect Jury instruction. The decision would have been the same had it been discovered that the text was recited.

It's not how I'm reading this, from the [quote:denver post]In deciding whether a person convicted of a heinous crime deserves life behind bars or death, Colorado jurors are instructed to examine their morals, a high- stakes bout of soul-searching that for many people rests on a foundation of faith.

But according to the Colorado Supreme Court, there's an important distinction between reciting Scripture verses from memory in the jury room and bringing in a Bible that never was admitted into evidence.
In a divided ruling, the state's highest court upheld a lower court's decision that Robert Harlan's sentence should be reduced from death to life in prison because jurors consulted an improper outside influence - the Bible [/quote]

 

[Bonnie]

The judicial fight against God and the people
Ben Shapiro

March 30, 2005

On Monday, March 28, the Colorado Supreme Court thrust into sharp relief the battle against traditional morality being waged by both state and federal judiciaries across the nation. In a 3-2 decision, the Colorado Supreme Court declared that Robert Harlan, a convicted murderer, had to be given a life sentence instead of the death penalty recommended by the jury because jurors leafed through a Bible for moral guidance during the sentencing phase of the trial. This, the majority stated, violated a jury proscription against viewing outside material:

The judicial system works very hard to emphasize the rarified, solemn and sequestered nature of jury deliberations... Jurors must deliberate in that atmosphere without the aid or distraction of extraneous texts.


This is inane. The judge who presided over the Harlan trial instructed each juror to make an "individual moral assessment" in determining whether Harlan should receive the death penalty; Colorado law dictates that jurors be instructed to consult their own personal morality before making such decisions. Many of the jurors obviously believed personally in Biblical morality. Viewing a Bible is nothing more than consulting a moral compass in which you believe. As the court's dissenters wrote:

The biblical passages the jurors discussed constituted either a part of the juror's moral and religious precepts or their general knowledge, and thus were relevant to their court-sanctioned moral assessment… In so holding, the majority puts death penalty jurors in an impossible bind; jurors are instructed to make the ultimate decision about life or death based on their individual moral assessment -- so long as their individual moral assessments are made from memory.

Is this decision really as arbitrary as all of this, or is there something deeper lurking beneath the surface? When the legalese is stripped away from this decision, all that is left is strident opposition to Biblical morality. The real point of the majority's decision was far simpler than mumbo-jumbo about extraneous texts. The point, as they articulated it, was this:

Some jurors may view biblical texts like the Leviticus passage at issue here as a factual representation of God's will. The text may also be viewed as a legal instruction, issuing from God, requiring a particular and mandatory punishment for murder. Such a 'fact' is not one presented in evidence in this case and such a 'legal instruction' is not the law of the state or part of the court's instructions.

The Bible is a legal and factual text that dictates a code of morality -- a code of morality that the Colorado courts explicitly require the Biblically-minded to consider. It is this superior code of morality , not legality, that the court dislikes. The Court's obfuscation of the issue by equating Biblical injunctions with Colorado statute is silly at best; if the Bible's statutory implications were taken at face value by the jurors, they would have to vote to acquit, seeing as how there were not two eyewitnesses to the Harlan crime (Deuteronomy 17:6).

In reality, this decision signals a cosmic shift in the way the American judicial system works. It used to be that moral judgments were to be made by the people. These judgments were usually articulated via legislation by elected legislatures. In Colorado, moral judgments in criminal cases are explicitly left to the people in the form of the jury.


Now, however, the roles have been reversed. Judges have become the ultimate moral arbiters, while the people are barred from making collective moral decisions. While the Colorado Supreme Court rips jurors for using the Bible as a source for morality, judges have no qualms about looking to "extraneous texts" to impose their morality on the rest of us: Just view the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Roper v. Simmons, where the majority cited "evolving standards of decency," and then proceeded to justify its own standard of decency by referring to international law. Or how about Lawrence v. Texas, where the majority decided that the Constitution guarantees a right to sodomy based on blasts of hot air from Justice Kennedy: "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime"?

And so the people are prevented from bringing their moral beliefs to bear, while the elites on our benches legislate their morality for the rest of us. These judges don't just want to prevent Americans from bringing their Bibles into jury rooms; they want to prevent Bibles from entering voting booths. In one sense, the Colorado Supreme Court is right -- the Bible is authoritative. But it's certainly a better authority than the subjectivism espoused by our judges.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/printbs20050330.shtml