The thing that kills me on this death penalty w/no Bible/Quran/Hammurabi's Code is an apparent animosity towards the flow of how we developed our systems of justice in the first place.
Its kinda like getting kicked out engineering school for referencing James Watt or Thomas Newcomen.
We have these "inaliable rights" not from reason but supposedly they were given to us by God. Now on one hand we can't have people referencing how they believe God wants to handle this---but on the other it's the basis of our country's independence.
in this case the judge threw out the case because the jurors had access to a bible, and read it while debating the verdict.
along those lines, should the verdict have been thrown out if the jurors had memorized the bible?
Exactly, if a lawyer doesn't believe you can apply the law in a reasonable manner then they try to have you removed from the jury.
Who we are does not change while we are in that room.
For the others here from the article.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
"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.
Quote:
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.
Again and I ask, if you are rendering a verdict on terrorist, should they sequester you from just the news, or also Tom Clancy?
No one makes a decision in a vacuum. They sequester people so that outside discussion and information about THE CASE being tried doesn't influence them. They do not sequester them in am attempt to stop them from being who they were before the case.
No but they take a certain role when they become jurors. Just like the McD kids job is to take orders, apply the right food to the order and serve it to you it is their job to take the case, match it with the law and say how the law applies to the case. Yes its not as simple as serving burgers because theory and practice doesn´t apply one-to-one. But the arguments should be found in the law and the discussion should be around that. That isn´t the same as saying people will fulfill their duty to do so.
But when jurors jointly begin to look in the bible for answers its clear that something went wrong.
in this case the judge threw out the case because the jurors had access to a bible, and read it while debating the verdict.
along those lines, should the verdict have been thrown out if the jurors had memorized the bible?
No it should have beenthrown out if the arguments for the verdict in the discussion between the jurors had centered around the bible instead of the law.
The thing that kills me on this death penalty w/no Bible/Quran/Hammurabi's Code is an apparent animosity towards the flow of how we developed our systems of justice in the first place.
Its kinda like getting kicked out engineering school for referencing James Watt or Thomas Newcomen.
We have these "inaliable rights" not from reason but supposedly they were given to us by God. Now on one hand we can't have people referencing how they believe God wants to handle this---but on the other it's the basis of our country's independence.
That's schizophrenic reasoning.
If your rights were given by god then there is something very screwy about your constitution. Hopefully they are taken for granted (or however it is expressed. "Hold these rights to be obvious" or something, right?
Yes, "self evident" but a "creator" is presumed. Deism was the frame of the day. Even as Calvinistic as Washington got, you still get a nondescript "providence", etc. in his writings.
But as for the law---it says that if you are guilty of a Capital Crime you can get the DP. So we may be looking at whether the jury was considering not the guilt, but the sentence. They were completly within the law either way--no matter what they read or thought.
Like alcimedes said, they could have memorized the Quran and thought back on those versus. Hell, for that matter they could have memorized something their mother told them when they were five years old. It doesn't matter. They were pulling from a philosophy that they respected---there just isn't any way to seprate that from a juror.
Aj, the hypocrisy of christian death-penalty supporters. I have tried to bring up the question with Fellowship but haven't received an answer. In any case, I was raised catholic, and I have paid attention to that education. It is so that the old testament shows us a vengeful God, willing and able to strike fierceful for all matter of causes. This, however, is redeemed by Jesus. He shows us a new God image, or rather, so does God through him. No longer 'eye for an eye', but 'turn the other cheek'. We have a peaceloving God all of a sudden, who is willing and able to sacrifice his own son for the good of all humanity, in order to save all humanity. The new testament rendered obsolete many parts of the old testament (at least as far as being a source for present day morality -for christians- is concerned). Eye for an eye is very obsolete.
?Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth? is not about exacting revenge by taking body parts, but about financial compensation in fair proportion to the damage suffered, that is certainly not an obsolete notion.
Your misinterpretation of it is hardly surprising, as is the case of your characterisation of ?vengeful god?, those are common misconceptions in your culture, but then one cannot blame you for misinterpreting a text outside its original cultural context and read from a bad translation to boot.
For the rest, trials in today's countries should be conducted according to the laws instituted by mere mortals, not to those deemed divine by the Bible.
Quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
As individuals we are to turn the other cheek but what is required of the state is a very different matter.
That is of course to be expected, the subjects are instructed to be obedient and forgiving while the authorities are not only allowed callousness, but encouraged to it and commended for it.
Quote:
The crucifixion doesn't neatly make the anti-death penalty case the way you imagine.
It might be interesting to note the context of crucifixion in Roman law. Under the republic, if I recall correctly, it was a punishment reserved for revolted slaves (hence Spartacus being crucified, and having later on become the Christ-like figure of a secular working class), under the Empire it was extended to rebels against imperial rule, which indicates a lesser difference between a free man and a slave in imperial times.
Quote:
God saw the death penalty, when imposed on his son, as a neccessary element in establishing his justice.
Infanticide was quite common at a time when fathers had absolute rights of life and death in several cultures. It was forbidden in Rome though, where fathers were only allowed to ?expose? (read ?abandon?) their newborn offspring, and it was completely forbidden in Judea.
Since idea of anyone having his son killed was beyond abomination for them; how could they find worthy of a god what they found beyond the abominable for a man?
We have these "inaliable rights" not from reason but supposedly they were given to us by God. Now on one hand we can't have people referencing how they believe God wants to handle this---but on the other it's the basis of our country's independence.
Does that notion of "unalienable rights" appear anywhere other than the Declaration of Independence? And that's not really a *legal* document, is it? It doesn't really have any legal weight in our system, in the end. The bulk of it is really just a description of the reasoning behind the revolution--a list of "offenses" by George III, most of which boil down to "He's acting like he's king or something!"
All the Preamble to the Constitution (which is, of course, a legal document) says is this: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Jeez, some people just love to feel like they're always being oppressed. What is it about contemporary conservative (esp. Christian conservative) mentality that being an oppressed victim has become such an important part of their identity?
This is not about religious freedom. This is about jury nullification. The question is, can jurors use extra-legal reasoning in making their decisions?
For example, there was a case a few years back in which a jury couldn't decide on a death penalty, and so they flipped a coin. Heads you live, tails you die. It came up tails, and they came back with a death sentence. Their verdict was overturned, but if no one had talked, which is their right, no one would have found out, and the verdict would have stood.
Same thing here. Jurors can do whatever the hell they want in the deliberation chamber - they can party, flip coins, use the Bible, talk about how they want to kill all the niggaz, whatever. Jury deliberations are secret. The hypocrisy is that we pretend that we don't allow nullification when their secrets do get out.
This seems kind of silly. It's not religious code that condemned the person to death; it was the law. Agree with it or not, the issue is the law, not people who read the Bible. I don't see how the government could tell these people that they could not read the Bible while on jury duty. That would be a clear violation of the First Amendment.
This seems kind of silly. It's not religious code that condemned the person to death; it was the law. Agree with it or not, the issue is the law, not people who read the Bible. I don't see how the government could tell these people that they could not read the Bible while on jury duty. That would be a clear violation of the First Amendment.
Er, 1st Amend deals with freedom of *expression*, not freedom of reading. Important difference.
in this case though we aren't talking about using your religious beliefs as a meter for guilt or innocence. rather, with it being a death penalty question, it's a matter of life or death.
to most, if not all people, life and death situations are closely tied to morality and justice. religion plays an integral part of both morality and justice for most people.
so a discussion where the topic of religious beliefs comes up when life and death are at stake is only natural. they could have just as easily decided to let him live based on their beliefs. should that verdict be thrown out as well?
i think it asks to much to demand that people seperate their morals from their religion.
Jeez, some people just love to feel like they're always being oppressed. What is it about contemporary conservative (esp. Christian conservative) mentality that being an oppressed victim has become such an important part of their identity?
Who's playing the oppressed victim? What did I miss? The judge DID overturn the verdict because jurors consulted Scripture. Those are the facts of the matter. The question is whether this was a proper decision for the judge to render. How is that playing the victim?
Quote:
This is not about religious freedom. This is about jury nullification...
Again what did I miss? The jurors were obviously not determining Harlan's guilt or innocence but his sentence. The question was no longer if they'd convict. Rather the deliberations were about whether or not they would vote in favor of executing the defendant. The death penalty is part of the law in Colorado. The jury couldn't impose the death penalty unless the prosecution sought it so how was this jury nullification? It would be rather remarkable if any juror DIDN'T bring his faith into the decision making process when determining the life or death fate of a convicted murderer.
The jury's job is to make a decision based on the merits of the case, as it pertains to the law. Personal beliefs may color your judgement, but part of the jury's job may be come to a decision in spite of, not because of, those personal beliefs. If the judge in this case determined that they made their decision based on the facts of the case, as it pertained to the Bible, then it's clear that he was right in throwing that decision out. Trying to determine how the jury came to its decision is admittedly a judgement call, but if several jurors were arguing that the Bible, and not the criminal code, was the relevent standard to hold the convict's behvaior against, it should make you wonder.
Edit: This is why, incidentally, people who are ideologically opposed to the death penalty are excluded from juries that may have to decide on capital punishment. Such people are unable to make a decision independent of their (genuine and strongly held) personal beliefs. Similarly, people who ideologically believe that all murderers should die, whatever the law says, should also be excluded from capital juries, for the same reason. It's unfortunate these people weren't - better screening might have saved taxpayers a lot of time and money.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I am convinced, however, (and this is already, to some degree, an answer to the question I asked myself in the post above), that answering violence with violence is not the right thing to do...
Fine, but that's easier to say when discussing these matters in the abstract. In the example you gave the father had lost the most - not only his child but his marriage too. You simply have to be aware of what it is you are asking people to do. Your and Sister Prejean's sentiments pale in comparison.
This brings me to one of the reasons why I'm against the death penalty. If I'd been in that man's shoes, I'd have probably wanted Poncelet dead too. However, I wouldn't want a kind of justice to be sought on my behalf at a time when all I could feel is a desire for vegeance. It would almost be like allowing the killer to define who I am.
The jury's job is to make a decision based on the merits of the case, as it pertains to the law. Personal beliefs may color your judgement, but part of the jury's job may be come to a decision in spite of, not because of, those personal beliefs. If the judge in this case determined that they made their decision based on the facts of the case, as it pertained to the Bible, then it's clear that he was right in throwing that decision out. Trying to determine how the jury came to its decision is admittedly a judgement call, but if several jurors were arguing that the Bible, and not the criminal code, was the relevent standard to hold the convict's behvaior against, it should make you wonder.
It doesn't appear they were arguing about the criminal's conduct but rather the state's. That is to say, whether the state should be allowed to execute the defendant.
Comments
Originally posted by billybobsky
rapid badgers
.....exactly HOW FAST are those little devils?
Its kinda like getting kicked out engineering school for referencing James Watt or Thomas Newcomen.
We have these "inaliable rights" not from reason but supposedly they were given to us by God. Now on one hand we can't have people referencing how they believe God wants to handle this---but on the other it's the basis of our country's independence.
That's schizophrenic reasoning.
along those lines, should the verdict have been thrown out if the jurors had memorized the bible?
Originally posted by alcimedes
in this case the judge threw out the case because the jurors had access to a bible, and read it while debating the verdict.
along those lines, should the verdict have been thrown out if the jurors had memorized the bible?
Exactly, if a lawyer doesn't believe you can apply the law in a reasonable manner then they try to have you removed from the jury.
Who we are does not change while we are in that room.
For the others here from the article.
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.
"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.
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.
Again and I ask, if you are rendering a verdict on terrorist, should they sequester you from just the news, or also Tom Clancy?
No one makes a decision in a vacuum. They sequester people so that outside discussion and information about THE CASE being tried doesn't influence them. They do not sequester them in am attempt to stop them from being who they were before the case.
Nick
But when jurors jointly begin to look in the bible for answers its clear that something went wrong.
Originally posted by alcimedes
in this case the judge threw out the case because the jurors had access to a bible, and read it while debating the verdict.
along those lines, should the verdict have been thrown out if the jurors had memorized the bible?
No it should have beenthrown out if the arguments for the verdict in the discussion between the jurors had centered around the bible instead of the law.
Which it did here.
Originally posted by ena
The thing that kills me on this death penalty w/no Bible/Quran/Hammurabi's Code is an apparent animosity towards the flow of how we developed our systems of justice in the first place.
Its kinda like getting kicked out engineering school for referencing James Watt or Thomas Newcomen.
We have these "inaliable rights" not from reason but supposedly they were given to us by God. Now on one hand we can't have people referencing how they believe God wants to handle this---but on the other it's the basis of our country's independence.
That's schizophrenic reasoning.
If your rights were given by god then there is something very screwy about your constitution. Hopefully they are taken for granted (or however it is expressed. "Hold these rights to be obvious" or something, right?
But as for the law---it says that if you are guilty of a Capital Crime you can get the DP. So we may be looking at whether the jury was considering not the guilt, but the sentence. They were completly within the law either way--no matter what they read or thought.
Like alcimedes said, they could have memorized the Quran and thought back on those versus. Hell, for that matter they could have memorized something their mother told them when they were five years old. It doesn't matter. They were pulling from a philosophy that they respected---there just isn't any way to seprate that from a juror.
Originally posted by der Kopf
Aj, the hypocrisy of christian death-penalty supporters. I have tried to bring up the question with Fellowship but haven't received an answer. In any case, I was raised catholic, and I have paid attention to that education. It is so that the old testament shows us a vengeful God, willing and able to strike fierceful for all matter of causes. This, however, is redeemed by Jesus. He shows us a new God image, or rather, so does God through him. No longer 'eye for an eye', but 'turn the other cheek'. We have a peaceloving God all of a sudden, who is willing and able to sacrifice his own son for the good of all humanity, in order to save all humanity. The new testament rendered obsolete many parts of the old testament (at least as far as being a source for present day morality -for christians- is concerned). Eye for an eye is very obsolete.
?Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth? is not about exacting revenge by taking body parts, but about financial compensation in fair proportion to the damage suffered, that is certainly not an obsolete notion.
Your misinterpretation of it is hardly surprising, as is the case of your characterisation of ?vengeful god?, those are common misconceptions in your culture, but then one cannot blame you for misinterpreting a text outside its original cultural context and read from a bad translation to boot.
For the rest, trials in today's countries should be conducted according to the laws instituted by mere mortals, not to those deemed divine by the Bible.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
As individuals we are to turn the other cheek but what is required of the state is a very different matter.
That is of course to be expected, the subjects are instructed to be obedient and forgiving while the authorities are not only allowed callousness, but encouraged to it and commended for it.
The crucifixion doesn't neatly make the anti-death penalty case the way you imagine.
It might be interesting to note the context of crucifixion in Roman law. Under the republic, if I recall correctly, it was a punishment reserved for revolted slaves (hence Spartacus being crucified, and having later on become the Christ-like figure of a secular working class), under the Empire it was extended to rebels against imperial rule, which indicates a lesser difference between a free man and a slave in imperial times.
God saw the death penalty, when imposed on his son, as a neccessary element in establishing his justice.
Infanticide was quite common at a time when fathers had absolute rights of life and death in several cultures. It was forbidden in Rome though, where fathers were only allowed to ?expose? (read ?abandon?) their newborn offspring, and it was completely forbidden in Judea.
Since idea of anyone having his son killed was beyond abomination for them; how could they find worthy of a god what they found beyond the abominable for a man?
Originally posted by ena
We have these "inaliable rights" not from reason but supposedly they were given to us by God. Now on one hand we can't have people referencing how they believe God wants to handle this---but on the other it's the basis of our country's independence.
Does that notion of "unalienable rights" appear anywhere other than the Declaration of Independence? And that's not really a *legal* document, is it? It doesn't really have any legal weight in our system, in the end. The bulk of it is really just a description of the reasoning behind the revolution--a list of "offenses" by George III, most of which boil down to "He's acting like he's king or something!"
All the Preamble to the Constitution (which is, of course, a legal document) says is this: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Nothing about God at all.
Cheers
Scott
This is not about religious freedom. This is about jury nullification. The question is, can jurors use extra-legal reasoning in making their decisions?
For example, there was a case a few years back in which a jury couldn't decide on a death penalty, and so they flipped a coin. Heads you live, tails you die. It came up tails, and they came back with a death sentence. Their verdict was overturned, but if no one had talked, which is their right, no one would have found out, and the verdict would have stood.
Same thing here. Jurors can do whatever the hell they want in the deliberation chamber - they can party, flip coins, use the Bible, talk about how they want to kill all the niggaz, whatever. Jury deliberations are secret. The hypocrisy is that we pretend that we don't allow nullification when their secrets do get out.
Originally posted by AppleMaster
This seems kind of silly. It's not religious code that condemned the person to death; it was the law. Agree with it or not, the issue is the law, not people who read the Bible. I don't see how the government could tell these people that they could not read the Bible while on jury duty. That would be a clear violation of the First Amendment.
Er, 1st Amend deals with freedom of *expression*, not freedom of reading. Important difference.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Er, 1st Amend deals with freedom of *expression*, not freedom of reading. Important difference.
Now that's just silly.
to most, if not all people, life and death situations are closely tied to morality and justice. religion plays an integral part of both morality and justice for most people.
so a discussion where the topic of religious beliefs comes up when life and death are at stake is only natural. they could have just as easily decided to let him live based on their beliefs. should that verdict be thrown out as well?
i think it asks to much to demand that people seperate their morals from their religion.
Originally posted by BRussell
Jeez, some people just love to feel like they're always being oppressed. What is it about contemporary conservative (esp. Christian conservative) mentality that being an oppressed victim has become such an important part of their identity?
Who's playing the oppressed victim? What did I miss? The judge DID overturn the verdict because jurors consulted Scripture. Those are the facts of the matter. The question is whether this was a proper decision for the judge to render. How is that playing the victim?
This is not about religious freedom. This is about jury nullification...
Again what did I miss? The jurors were obviously not determining Harlan's guilt or innocence but his sentence. The question was no longer if they'd convict. Rather the deliberations were about whether or not they would vote in favor of executing the defendant. The death penalty is part of the law in Colorado. The jury couldn't impose the death penalty unless the prosecution sought it so how was this jury nullification? It would be rather remarkable if any juror DIDN'T bring his faith into the decision making process when determining the life or death fate of a convicted murderer.
Edit: This is why, incidentally, people who are ideologically opposed to the death penalty are excluded from juries that may have to decide on capital punishment. Such people are unable to make a decision independent of their (genuine and strongly held) personal beliefs. Similarly, people who ideologically believe that all murderers should die, whatever the law says, should also be excluded from capital juries, for the same reason. It's unfortunate these people weren't - better screening might have saved taxpayers a lot of time and money.
Originally posted by der Kopf
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I am convinced, however, (and this is already, to some degree, an answer to the question I asked myself in the post above), that answering violence with violence is not the right thing to do...
Fine, but that's easier to say when discussing these matters in the abstract. In the example you gave the father had lost the most - not only his child but his marriage too. You simply have to be aware of what it is you are asking people to do. Your and Sister Prejean's sentiments pale in comparison.
This brings me to one of the reasons why I'm against the death penalty. If I'd been in that man's shoes, I'd have probably wanted Poncelet dead too. However, I wouldn't want a kind of justice to be sought on my behalf at a time when all I could feel is a desire for vegeance. It would almost be like allowing the killer to define who I am.
Originally posted by Towel
The jury's job is to make a decision based on the merits of the case, as it pertains to the law. Personal beliefs may color your judgement, but part of the jury's job may be come to a decision in spite of, not because of, those personal beliefs. If the judge in this case determined that they made their decision based on the facts of the case, as it pertained to the Bible, then it's clear that he was right in throwing that decision out. Trying to determine how the jury came to its decision is admittedly a judgement call, but if several jurors were arguing that the Bible, and not the criminal code, was the relevent standard to hold the convict's behvaior against, it should make you wonder.
It doesn't appear they were arguing about the criminal's conduct but rather the state's. That is to say, whether the state should be allowed to execute the defendant.