Death sentence overturned ... jury consulted Bible

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-03-28 07:38pm

Death Sentence Thrown Out Because of Jury's Bible Reading
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 6:24 p.m. ET

DENVER (AP) -- The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday threw out the death penalty in a rape-and-murder case because jurors had studied Bible verses such as ``eye for eye, tooth for tooth'' during deliberations.

On a 3-2 vote, justices ordered Robert Harlan to serve life in prison without parole for kidnapping 25-year-old cocktail waitress Rhonda Maloney in 1994 and raping her at gunpoint for two hours.

The jurors in Harlan's 1995 trial sentenced him to die, but defense lawyers discovered five of them had looked up Bible verses, copied them down and talked about them while deliberating a sentence behind closed doors.

The Supreme Court said that ``at least one juror in this case could have been influenced by these authoritative passages to vote for the death penalty when he or she may otherwise have voted for a life sentence.''

Assistant District Attorney Michael Goodbee said prosecutors were reviewing the ruling and could ask the state Supreme Court to reconsider or could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

During oral arguments before the Supreme Court last month, defense attorney Kathleen Lord 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 had argued that jurors should be allowed to refer to the Bible or other religious texts during deliberations.

Link

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-03-28 07:42pm

I have no words. This is beyond stupid. Thankfully it gor thrown out, but wow, just wow.

Anyone want to place bets on when such a sentance will be upheld because of some Biblical bullshit?

The Spartan · Post by **The Spartan** » 2005-03-28 07:53pm

What scares me is the prosecution argueing that juries should be allowed to consult any religious text they want to... ye-ah, cause the law isn't especially relevant and a trial.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-03-28 08:12pm

Well, great, now an asshole who probably deserved his sentence will get to live out the rest of his days in a jail cell. Way to go, fundies!

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2005-03-28 08:19pm

Joe wrote:Well, great, now an asshole who probably deserved his sentence will get to live out the rest of his days in a jail cell. Way to go, fundies!

They were picking and choosing, the old testament's very pro rape, murder of non-belivers, pro death penalty, wilst Jesus was "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" anti-death penalty, he was also anti religious profitteering.

Skelron · Post by **Skelron** » 2005-03-28 08:24pm

Well of course they where Yosemite rule number for being a Fundalmentalist Christian. Ignore anything Jesus actualy said, cast the first stone, grow as rich as you can, screw your neighbour (and not in a good way I should add here), hate the world.... and invite the money-changers into the Temple. (to referance the Megachurch thread)

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2005-03-28 11:15pm

Meh. While I know these thoughts never went through the minds of the jurors, why exactly is it that judges can cite laws and frikking traditions ancient civilizations at will while jurors doing the same thing get overturned? I mean seriously Blackmun blatently and openly cites Aquinas, not to mention Persian, Greek, and Roman tradition. I'm very much in favor of limiting jurispondence to actual law and precedent; but if judges can go abroad and back in time when considering law ... why exactly is the legal code of the ancient Hebrews any less valid?

Agent Fisher · Post by **Agent Fisher** » 2005-03-28 11:23pm

You know with the casting the first stone, why not just get a baby to throw a stone, then everyone can join in.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2005-03-28 11:26pm

Well supposidly our law is based on the Bible. 10 Commandments for every courtroom I say!

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2005-03-28 11:30pm

Agent Fisher wrote:You know with the casting the first stone, why not just get a baby to throw a stone, then everyone can join in.

because knowing baby's they will just put the damn thing in their mouth.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2005-03-28 11:36pm

Agent Fisher wrote:You know with the casting the first stone, why not just get a baby to throw a stone, then everyone can join in.

Or Rod and Tod Flanders could be the appointed court executioners.

Tzeentch · Post by **Tzeentch** » 2005-03-28 11:56pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:
Agent Fisher wrote:You know with the casting the first stone, why not just get a baby to throw a stone, then everyone can join in.
because knowing baby's they will just put the damn thing in their mouth.

Read Augustine sometime. Babies are terrible sinners, full of sloth and wrath and gluttony. Just look at those little pudgy faces... can't you almost see the evil?

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2005-03-29 02:23am

...

I'm too tired to begin my usual rant so I'll leave it at this...

mwm1331 · Post by **mwm1331** » 2005-03-29 04:48am

I dont understand something, this was a case where they were using the bible to determine sentancing correct?
Isn't using the bible to determine that the accused should be executed the same as using secular morality to determine that the accused should not be sentanced to death?
I could understand the problem if they had used passages from the bible to determine guilt, but it seems to me this was a case of the juror or jurors in question using the bible to determine whether or not they could support a legally valid sentance of death.
Since the accused had already been found guilty through legal channels does it matter how they justified to themselves passing a death sentance?
Furthermore if the death penalty was a legally accepted penalty for this crime why does thier ratonale for supporting the sentace matter?
I mean would a decision not to impose the death penalty by a buddhist based on his or her relgous beliefs also be overturned?

The Third Man · Post by **The Third Man** » 2005-03-29 07:04am

mwm1331 wrote: I dont understand something, this was a case where they were using the bible to determine sentancing correct?

It appears strange to me too on first sight. I assume from the carefully picked legalese, in which they take care to use the specific wording "influenced by these authoritative passages" and hint at written copies, that the argument is not that religion-based morality was applied, but that an "external influence" was brought to bear on the supposedly private deliberations of the jury.

Hmmm. It's almost as if the defence are pleading for some sort of twisted version of an Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Which begs the question, is God, or the inviolable (of course!) written word thereof, a valid authority on matters of life-and-death morality?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-03-29 08:51am

He may well have deserved it but when justice is so miscarried as that there is no other real option. Our justice system might be flawed but jeez if it isn't far, far better to have him live with a reduced punishment than to allow religious veiws to determine secular justice.

Wicked Pilot wrote:Well supposidly our law is based on the Bible. 10 Commandments for every courtroom I say!

Would you have been happier if it had been allowed to stand just so you can bitch?

mwm1331 · Post by **mwm1331** » 2005-03-29 09:05am

But Thats my whole point, There is no evidence that the bible was used to determine guilt. Which I agree would be seriously fucked up.
I dont however see the problem with these people using the bible to determine whether or not they could support the death penalty in this case.
Obviously the death penalty was a legal viable penalty for the crime s what does it matter if they decided he deserved it based on the works of ancent hebrews, or the works of Issac asimov or the UFP charter?

Melchior · Post by **Melchior** » 2005-03-29 09:10am

mwm1331 wrote:B
I dont however see the problem with these people using the bible to determine whether or not they could support the death penalty in this case.

Because there are laws approved by the elected representatives of the sovereign people that regualate the matter, while not everyone agrees about what is written in the bible, for example?
Are you really unable to see the problem with your reasoning?

mwm1331 · Post by **mwm1331** » 2005-03-29 09:19am

I think you are missing my point.
My question is, is this a situation where they used religous doctrine to violate the law?
Does the fact theat they used thier religon (philosophy) invalidate the fact that they made a legally correct decision?
Is this a case where they used the bible to determine that he deserved to die or did they use the bible to justify to themselves passing a death sentance?
There is a big difference.
The simple fact is there is no law against using any philosophy to base your decisions on unless that decison violates US law.
If the decision itself does not violate US law then does the philosohpy you use to arrive at that decison really matter?
Obviously this was not a case where they sentaced him to death for adultry, which would be against US law, so if the decision was legally correct why does the philosophy they used to arrive it it matter?
Had the juror decided to support the death penalty based on his grandpa's journal which stated that all rapists should be killed would it matter?
What i am trying to get at is that by overturning this decision despite the fact that it was legally correct, due to the philosophy which led to this decision we have established a precedent wherby any decison no matter how correct can be contested based on the personal morality or philosophy of the person makng it, which is unprovable at best.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-03-29 09:26am

mwm1331 wrote:I think you are missing my point.
My question is, is this a situation where they used religous doctrine to violate the law?
Does the fact theat they used thier religon (philosophy) invalidate the fact that they made a legally correct decision?

The law of the United States of America is secular. If they used, considered, or consulted religious doctrine then that does invalidate it. For that matter, if they had consulted anything but the law and evidence in considering the sentence then they invalidated it.

mwm1331 wrote:What i am trying to get at is that by overturning this decision despite the fact that it was legally correct,

It is not legally correct. This runs counter to a whole lot of precedent which states that one cannot consider anything but the law.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2005-03-29 09:30am

I wonder if she had survived if the jury would have sentenced him to a hefty fine and to marry her.

mwm1331 · Post by **mwm1331** » 2005-03-29 09:34am

Stormbringer I am not arguing that the law of the US isn't secular.
In fact I am not arguing anything just trying to understand something outside of my own field.
I am arguing that since, had the bible not come into it, the sentance would have stood, why does it matter whether it did?
If the decision to sentance him to death itself was not in violation of the law why does it matter that they used the bible to justify passing that sentance ( How they could actually do so is an entirely different matter)
If the sentance viewed in a vacum was correct, why does the method the jurors reached it in matter?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-03-29 09:42am

Please try to use proper grammar, would you? Paragraphs are your friend.

mwm1331 wrote:I am arguing that since, had the bible not come into it, the sentance would have stood, why does it matter whether it did?

Because the bible did come into it. The simple fact is that religious doctrine is not an acceptable justification for a punishment in secular law. It's a long established principle of US law that the law itself is not and should not be subject to religious doctrine in any way and shape.

mwm1331 wrote:If the decision to sentance him to death itself was not in violation of the law why does it matter that they used the bible to justify passing that sentance ( How they could actually do so is an entirely different matter)
If the sentance viewed in a vacum was correct, why does the method the jurors reached it in matter?

It matters because they did not reach it based on US law, but upon religious doctrine. Do you understand the difference between that?

mwm1331 · Post by **mwm1331** » 2005-03-29 09:47am

But the result is the same.
The same sentane would have been reached based on only interperting US law.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-03-29 09:51am

mwm1331 wrote:But the result is the same.
The same sentane would have been reached based on only interperting US law.

If legal procedures have been violated in a case, the verdict is overturned. That is a basic principle of western law.