Death sentence Overturned due to Bible

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2003-05-25 11:44pm

Home > News > Oddly Enough > Article

Death Sentence Overturned Because Jury Used Bible
Sun May 25, 2003 08:56 AM ET
DENVER (Reuters) - A judge overturned a convicted murderer's death sentence because jurors consulted Biblical passages such as an "eye for an eye" during death-penalty deliberations.

Robert Harlan was convicted and sentenced to death in 1995 for the murder of Rhonda Maloney, a waitress who was driving home from work when Harlan forced her car off the road.

Harlan also shot and paralyzed good Samaritan Jaquie Creazzo who tried to come to the woman's aid.

While noting that Harlan's crimes "were among the most grievous, heinous and reprehensible" he had seen in 18 years on the bench, Adams County District Judge John J. Vigil said Friday that court officials failed to properly sequester the jury.

Jury members stayed in a hotel during deliberations and court officials made sure newspapers were not delivered to their rooms, but the jurors did find bibles in the rooms.

"The jury supervision performed in this case was extremely negligent and appallingly lax," Vigil wrote in his ruling. "Jury resort to biblical code has no place in a constitutional death penalty proceeding."

Vigil has not yet set a date for Harlan's resentencing.

"We respectively disagree and will appeal," Adams County assistant district attorney Steve Bernard said. He also said the record was not clear about whether a bible was brought into the jury room.

In a five-day hearing last month, Harlan's attorneys argued that several jurors consulted biblical scripture during jury deliberations, particularly two Old Testament passages from Leviticus that read, "fracture 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."

Prosecutors had argued that the sequestration order applied to news media coverage and that jurors should be allowed to draw upon their personal moral code including the Bible while rendering a verdict.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-05-25 11:55pm

Aaaaaaaaaaargh!

This just pushed me to breaking point!

[Hulk]WHY THE FUCK DID THIS FUCKING FUCKER GET AWAY FROM THE DEATH PENALTY? WHY? BECAUSE A COUPLE OF DONKEY-FUCKING JURORS DECIDED TO MAKE USE OF THAT WASTE OF TREES KNOWNS AS THE FUCKING BIBLE? AND WHY THE FUCK WHERE JURORS CONSULTING THE BIBLE FOR ADVICE ANYWAY? WHAT THE MOTHERFUCKING FUCKITTY-FUCK-FUCK-FUCK-FUCK-FUCK IS THAT ABOUT? ITS A FUCKING COURTROOM NOT A FUCKING CHURCH! SEPERATION AND CHURCH AND STATE APPARENTLY DOESN'T APPLY WHEN SENTENCING A MURDERER. GRRRRRRRR! BUT PLEASE SOMEONE TELL ME THAT HIS LAWYER WON'T PLAY THE "GUILT-TRIP CARD" WHEN IT COMES TO RESENTENCING. ALSO WHY THE FUCK DID HE GET OFF, APPARENTLY SWEARING AN OATH ON THE BIBLE IN THE COURTROOM IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE BUT CONSULTING IT IN THE JURY ROOM IS NOT, IF YOU ASK ME ITS TIME FOR SOMETHING TO GIVE. ALL I SEE IS AN UNREPENTANT MURDERER WHO TRULY DESERVES TO FUCKING WELL DIE. I HOPE THE FUCKER IS RESENTENCED TO DEATH, BECAUSE UNLIKE MANY ON DEATH ROW, THIS GUY WOULD APPEAR TO GENUINELY FUCKING DESERVE IT. I ALSO HOPE THAT SHOULD THE MAN BE RESENTENCED TO SOMETHING OTHER THAN DEATH THAT THE BIBLICAL JUSTICE THEY BELIEVE IN BE EXACTED BY THE FAMILIES OF THE VICTIM UPON THEM FOR INTERFERING WITH THE REAL FUCKING LAW.[/Hulk]

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-05-26 12:25am

The legal process is sometimes more important than the outcome. You must remember, even if he does deserve death, he also deserves to have a fair sentencing...

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-05-26 12:25am

Oi vey!

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Solid Snake · Post by **Solid Snake** » 2003-05-26 01:07am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:The legal process is sometimes more important than the outcome. You must remember, even if he does deserve death, he also deserves to have a fair sentencing...

Yeah, but apparently we as a people have the power to pick and choose what parts of the constitution to follow. Fair trial? Sure, you are garunteed a fair trial. Seperation of church and state?

FUCK YOU!!!

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-05-26 01:11am

It's all in how one interprets the Bible. The purpose of a nation's judicial system is to punish criminals IAW that nation's laws. Christians are to submit to the authority of the nation in which they are citizens:

1 Pet 2:13-14
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority,
14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.
(NIV)

It is the purpose of a government to punish those who do wrong, and Christians who are in a jury are acting as agents of that government. Moreover, the following passage also explains the Christian's place in a nation's military, which carries out judgment against other nations:

Rom 13:2-4
2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
(NIV)

What the Christians (or those who call themselves "Christians") in question appear to have done is to act, based on Jesus' instruction to "turn the other cheek." They also may have thought the Commandment "You shall not murder," applied in this case. IMO, they were wrong on both accounts, but since they did not know the Scriptures, they acted on what little they apparently did know. But then nobody is perfect, and to those who would blast them for their very weighty decision, I would quote the following:

John 8:7-11
7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.
10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
11 "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
(NIV)

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-05-26 02:12am

If jurors choose to use the Bible as their basis for morality, is that not their prerogative? As I read it, the book was not pulled out when determining the guilt of the defendant, but during the sentancing. Sentancing is always a judgment call: what does it matter if the Bible was part of a jurur's judgement process?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-05-26 02:24am

Howedar wrote:If jurors choose to use the Bible as their basis for morality, is that not their prerogative? As I read it, the book was not pulled out when determining the guilt of the defendant, but during the sentancing. Sentancing is always a judgment call: what does it matter if the Bible was part of a jurur's judgement process?

Let's put a spin on this. Say the murderer was gay. Now say the jurors read the Bible, find Leviticus, and sentence him to death on the grounds that he murdered someone and is gay, so therefore he deserves death.

Both the judgment and sentencing are supposed to be as impartial as possible. Using the Bible to justify giving someone the death sentence is equivalent to using your power as a jury to force your purely subjective beliefs on someone else.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-05-26 02:43am

Thank you. Couldn't have put it better.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2003-05-26 02:57am

They should not have needed a bible for this crime.

At the very least take him off the streets...

h0rus · Post by **h0rus** » 2003-05-26 02:58am

This jerk won't get off at all. He'll get his eventually. Good call by the judge, though.

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-05-26 07:47am

I'm sorry, but this is about the most FUCKED UP thing I've heard all week, next to the people only getting 4 years for secluding and killing their son in an exorcism. I wonder how many of them were Christian..? [sighs and shakes head] Honestly, I don't like the idea of the death penalty, but that's just me. But if the death penalty were the sentence for the crime, then I say that he should have been given it..

~ver

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2003-05-26 10:55am

And if he proclaimed his devotion to jesus, they'd have let him go with a slap on the wrist.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-26 01:51pm

anything that gets people off the most heinous, immoral, and uncivilized punishment invented, is a good thing. Good for that guy.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-05-26 02:28pm

Durandal wrote:
Howedar wrote:If jurors choose to use the Bible as their basis for morality, is that not their prerogative? As I read it, the book was not pulled out when determining the guilt of the defendant, but during the sentancing. Sentancing is always a judgment call: what does it matter if the Bible was part of a jurur's judgement process?
Let's put a spin on this. Say the murderer was gay. Now say the jurors read the Bible, find Leviticus, and sentence him to death on the grounds that he murdered someone and is gay, so therefore he deserves death.

Both the judgment and sentencing are supposed to be as impartial as possible. Using the Bible to justify giving someone the death sentence is equivalent to using your power as a jury to force your purely subjective beliefs on someone else.

Fair enough. I was mostly playing the devil's advocate on that one.

Still, in most cases I don't see that it would be a big deal. People have constructed their moral structure on sillier things, I'm sure.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-05-26 02:48pm

Howedar wrote:Still, in most cases I don't see that it would be a big deal. People have constructed their moral structure on sillier things, I'm sure.

This is more or less equivalent to dorm occupants having alcohol in their rooms. Yes, it will always be there, and many students do have it; they just hide it. However, that doesn't mean that the one who leaves his door open with a 24-pack of beer in the middle of the room for the RA to see doesn't deserve punishment just for being stupid.

The jury just made themselves a target by using the Bible directly. However, I'm surprised that the prosecution didn't just say, "Well, witnesses swear on the Bible, so what's the big deal?" and get the sentence back.

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-05-26 03:11pm

Durandal wrote:
Howedar wrote:Still, in most cases I don't see that it would be a big deal. People have constructed their moral structure on sillier things, I'm sure.
This is more or less equivalent to dorm occupants having alcohol in their rooms. Yes, it will always be there, and many students do have it; they just hide it. However, that doesn't mean that the one who leaves his door open with a 24-pack of beer in the middle of the room for the RA to see doesn't deserve punishment just for being stupid.

The jury just made themselves a target by using the Bible directly. However, I'm surprised that the prosecution didn't just say, "Well, witnesses swear on the Bible, so what's the big deal?" and get the sentence back.

One question: What do they do for those that aren't Christian? (I've just never heard anything about this)

~ver

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-05-26 03:46pm

verilon wrote:One question: What do they do for those that aren't Christian? (I've just never heard anything about this)

~ver

Non-Christians don't have to swear on the Bible, or to God, as far as I know. However, no one who wants his testimony to be taken seriously would refuse. Refusing to swear to God and on the Bible is equivalent to striking your testimony from the record in a court room, simply because there's a good chance that the jury won't see you as credible due to the fact that you don't live in fear of an all-powerful, abusive father's wrath.

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-05-26 04:00pm

Durandal wrote:
verilon wrote:One question: What do they do for those that aren't Christian? (I've just never heard anything about this)

~ver
Non-Christians don't have to swear on the Bible, or to God, as far as I know. However, no one who wants his testimony to be taken seriously would refuse. Refusing to swear to God and on the Bible is equivalent to striking your testimony from the record in a court room, simply because there's a good chance that the jury won't see you as credible due to the fact that you don't live in fear of an all-powerful, abusive father's wrath.

And this is acceptable, even through Separation of Church and State?

Also, like the new av, though I prefer the Marathon Infinity and Tempus Irae looks better.

~ver

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-26 06:35pm

u should have to swear by a copy of the constitution

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-05-26 06:54pm

what if they are a citizen of another country?

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-26 07:13pm

they are working under the laws of this country. More importantly i dont care what they swear to, so long as they know that it is purgery to lie

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2003-05-26 07:17pm

After reading those scriptures I was rather perterbed. I mean after all according to that logic we should submit ourselves to Adolf Hitler. But it occured to me that Htiler overthrew a righteous authority (The Weimar republic) and imposed his own will. So we wouldn't have to submit to Hitler since he is not the authority but a rebel who overthrew the legitmate authority.

These scriptures are also good material to rebuke the fundamentalist pseudo-Christians constant complaining about school prayer, and the pledge. The constitution specifies separation of Church and State, therefore you have to obery those laws of the constitution. (And anyway pseudo-fundies, shouldn't you be worrying about more important things than something as idiotic as school prayer, like doing your Christian duty to help the growing number of poor in this country?)

It also affirms the notion that the law reigns supreme, the people in power are there to enforce the law. And if they fail to do so, then THEY have violated these commandments. (So George W Bush, what do you have to say for yourself Mr Man of God? Last time I checked the Patriot Act violated the constitution....)

Thank you, now I can rebuke fundamentalist "Christians" left and right. I can rebuke congress for eroding our constitutional rights with idiotic laws such as the DMCA and such.

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2003-05-26 07:18pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:what if they are a citizen of another country?

Really doesn't matter since they are bound by the laws of the United States, if they set foot in this nation.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-05-26 07:26pm

Lord MJ wrote:After reading those scriptures I was rather perterbed. I mean after all according to that logic we should submit ourselves to Adolf Hitler. But it occured to me that Htiler overthrew a righteous authority (The Weimar republic) and imposed his own will. So we wouldn't have to submit to Hitler since he is not the authority but a rebel who overthrew the legitmate authority.

well, actually, he was duly elected.