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?
IMO, the tone of some in this thread is that of the oppressed Christian, when this has nothing to do with free exercise of religion. It has to do with whether or not the jury applied the law in making their decision, not whether it's constitutional to be a Christian or some other nonsense.
Quote:
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.
By nullification I mean any time the jury goes beyond a simple application of the law to the facts of a case. It doesn't matter whether it's the sentencing or guilt phase. I consider the jury who flipped a coin and sentenced the defendant to death to have engaged in nullification. Maybe it's not the best term to use in there, because it's usually used to refer to an acquittal. But the underlying principle is the same (the jury going outside the law to make a decision), and I don't know of another term for it.
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.
Yup.
But do you think death qualification is fair to the defendant during the guilt phase?
IMO, the tone of some in this thread is that of the oppressed Christian, when this has nothing to do with free exercise of religion. It has to do with whether or not the jury applied the law in making their decision, not whether it's constitutional to be a Christian or some other nonsense...
Again, who's saying anything like that? What did I miss?
By nullification I mean any time the jury goes beyond a simple application of the law to the facts of a case. It doesn't matter whether it's the sentencing or guilt phase...
Sure it does. They'd already weighed the facts of the case and found him guilty. They'd moved on to the sentencing phase and it appears that some jurists had personal objections to the death penalty with respect to it's inherent nature. That is to say, whether it should be permitted of the state to apply the death penalty in any case. If they had acted in contravention of Colorado law and decided that the state couldn't execute because their personal beliefs forbade it, you'd have a case. But Colorado law permitted the application of the death penalty. What did they nullify?
They'd moved on to the sentencing phase and it appears that some jurists had personal objections to the death penalty with respect to it's inherent nature. That is to say, whether it should be permitted of the state to apply the death penalty in any case.
I agree that would be different, but I haven't seen that interpretation of what happened. It certainly doesn't appear in the article linked in this thread. And if that was the case, as Towel pointed out, those jurors should have been excluded at voir dire.
And the argument is still nullification. If the jurors say "should we impose the death penalty?" and, rather than determining whether the conditions of their jury instructions are met, they go to the Bible to make their decision, that's nullification. (And I want to reiterate that I think juries clearly have the power to nullify.)
I don't understand the distinction you're making between guilt and sentencing. Of course nullification can occur at sentencing - that's what death qualification is all about. Let me ask you this: What about the jury that flipped the coin? Is that nullification? Or does your "but it was sentencing" argument apply to that one too?
But do you think death qualification is fair to the defendant during the guilt phase?
By death qualification, you mean excluding prospective jurors based on their attitude towards the death penalty? It's not so much a question of fairness as the applicability of the law. Deciding on death (I think) must be unanimous. So selecting someone for a jury who declares that he will not, in any circumstances, vote for death would render the law meaningless. It would also make the trial itself meaningless, as much as would selecting a juror who declares he will always vote to acquit. For fairness, the process needs jurors who have not made up their minds ahead of time.
By death qualification, you mean excluding prospective jurors based on their attitude towards the death penalty? It's not so much a question of fairness as the applicability of the law. Deciding on death (I think) must be unanimous. So selecting someone for a jury who declares that he will not, in any circumstances, vote for death would render the law meaningless. It would also make the trial itself meaningless, as much as would selecting a juror who declares he will always vote to acquit. For fairness, the process needs jurors who have not made up their minds ahead of time.
We posted at the same time.
Yes, but think about who you end up with when you have a death-qualified jury. You basically have a liberal-free jury. And blacks are excluded more often. And skeptics of the criminal justice system - basically anyone who might not be so prosecutor-friendly.
The problem is that death-qualified juries are more likely to convict. So in those very cases where you want the jury to be extra careful, you get a biased jury. Prosecutors know this very well, and often call for the death penalty, even if they otherwise wouldn't, because they believe they'll be more likely to get their conviction. It's a really bad idea, IMO. I think if they want the death penalty, they ought to just pick a jury and let the chips fall. If the prosecution is unlucky enough to get a juror who believes a person is guilty, but they're against the death penatly, sobeit. But it's been upheld by the Supreme Court several times.
That's hardly reflective of the tone of the entire thread.
Quote:
I agree that would be different, but I haven't seen that interpretation of what happened. It certainly doesn't appear in the article linked in this thread. And if that was the case, as Towel pointed out, those jurors should have been excluded at voir dire.
Sure and it would have been a prosecutorial screwup that would have had to stand.
Quote:
And the argument is still nullification. If the jurors say "should we impose the death penalty?" and, rather than determining whether the conditions of their jury instructions are met, they go to the Bible to make their decision, that's nullification. (And I want to reiterate that I think juries clearly have the power to nullify.)
I don't understand the distinction you're making between guilt and sentencing. Of course nullification can occur at sentencing - that's what death qualification is all about...
I didn't say it couldn't ocurr at sentencing. I simply reitereated that they HAD considered the facts of the case. That's how they determined the defendant was guilty. Moreover, the only way nullification could have ocurred during sentencing was if they chose NOT to apply the death penalty due to their personal beliefs. It appears that Scripture was used to permit the jurors to impose a sentence the law already allowed. Or are you arguing that this case didn't meet the qualifications for the death penalty?
Quote:
Let me ask you this: What about the jury that flipped the coin? Is that nullification? Or does your "but it was sentencing" argument apply to that one too?
I think if they want the death penalty, they ought to just pick a jury and let the chips fall.
It's a tough question, and may be another reason why the death penalty is inherently unfair. The problem I forsee with "don't ask, don't tell" is that the decision of death or not is then essentially random. It would not be based on the merits of the case, but the luck of the draw - whether the jury is seeded with a death penalty opponent. You can't let judicial questions or life and death hang on luck of the draw. But you're right, instead we get a system of capital cases biased towards conviction. Maybe that means we should have larger pools of alternates for capital cases, and re-question jurors before the sentencing phase.
Yeah, so? Apart from this controversy or any misgivings you may have about capital punishment do you think this case met the qualifications for the death penalty? Again, I'm opposed to the death penalty but from the facts that have been reported it sure seems to me this case qualifies. I mean, as long as there is a death penalty, this case clears the threshold for it's application.
Quote:
The jury cannot believe that conviction = death, regardless.
Like I said at the top. This is nothing more than an activist judge handing one over to anti-death penalty lawyers. A new legalistic trick to get a death sentence overturned.
Sounds like the jury already made their mind up WRT the death penalty, and used their reading of some Bible passages as justification as if they needed to defend their position. I'd like to hear the thought process when coming to their sentence. Christians are supposed to model their morals and life on the NT; the OT is almost like a historic account, a prelude leading up to the messiah. I guess some people will just use the Bible any way they choose when they see fit. Then agian the judge may have had his own agenda so... who knows.
Like I said at the top. This is nothing more than an activist judge handing one over to anti-death penalty lawyers. A new legalistic trick to get a death sentence overturned.
No, just a group of idiots using a moldy tome instead of the letter of the law.
Again, I'm opposed to the death penalty but from the facts that have been reported it sure seems to me this case qualifies. I mean, as long as there is a death penalty, this case clears the threshold for it's application.
How do you know? What is the jury told to consider during sentencing in Colorado? I have no idea, and I couldn't find out with a quick search. But I guarantee that they're given very specific guidelines to consider when deliberating (e.g., will this person commit further acts of violence), and they're probably told not to refer to outside information in making their judgment.
What I find humorous here is some of the assumptions. My reading of the passages quoted with regard to the Bible in this story makes me thing that some member DID NOT want to vote for the death penalty based off religious convictions. Perhaps 11 were in agreement and 1 was not because of their religious thoughts.
They might have used the Bible to convince him/her that the sentence of death was in the best interest of society.
The future result of this could also be that people who are sympathetic enough to insure the death penalty is not applied are instead tossed off juries.
Turning the other cheek is not what I would call a generalized concept with regard to society. If anything this could increase the number of death penalty sentences.
But I guarantee that they're given very specific guidelines to consider when deliberating (e.g., will this person commit further acts of violence), and they're probably told not to refer to outside information in making their judgment.
You are right. This point is essential, they have to follow guidelines, and this guidelines are the law.
The bible or any holy book are not law guidelines even if they are the roots of the moral of nearly all civilisations.
Perhaps Scott is right when he assume that the judge use this argument to overturns the trial because he is anti-death. Or it's possible to assume, that this judge have the highest professional standarts, and want that the jury is following perfectly the procedure. Who knows ? (perhaps only the judge if he honnest with himself ...).
One thing is sure, there is no good trials if the procedure is not respected. In the contrary you have only parody of justice. Even if this man deserve death, he have the right to have a fair and honnest trial. And fair include respecting the procedure and the guidelines.
It's up to a jury to decide if there is sufficient evidence to convict, not to decide the nature of the punishment should a defendant be found guilty.
I don't see that the Bible was being used here to make any evidentiary analysis -- if these are indeed the only related passages the jurors referenced. These Biblical quotes relate to what constitutes fair punishment, and may have only been the jurors way of coming to grips with the results their voting could have.
[BThe future result of this could also be that people who are sympathetic enough to insure the death penalty is not applied are instead tossed off juries.[/B]
That is the case now.
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
It's up to a jury to decide if there is sufficient evidence to convict, not to decide the nature of the punishment should a defendant be found guilty...
Comments
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
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?
IMO, the tone of some in this thread is that of the oppressed Christian, when this has nothing to do with free exercise of religion. It has to do with whether or not the jury applied the law in making their decision, not whether it's constitutional to be a Christian or some other nonsense.
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.
By nullification I mean any time the jury goes beyond a simple application of the law to the facts of a case. It doesn't matter whether it's the sentencing or guilt phase. I consider the jury who flipped a coin and sentenced the defendant to death to have engaged in nullification. Maybe it's not the best term to use in there, because it's usually used to refer to an acquittal. But the underlying principle is the same (the jury going outside the law to make a decision), and I don't know of another term for it.
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.
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.
Yup.
But do you think death qualification is fair to the defendant during the guilt phase?
Originally posted by BRussell
IMO, the tone of some in this thread is that of the oppressed Christian, when this has nothing to do with free exercise of religion. It has to do with whether or not the jury applied the law in making their decision, not whether it's constitutional to be a Christian or some other nonsense...
Again, who's saying anything like that? What did I miss?
Originally posted by BRussell
By nullification I mean any time the jury goes beyond a simple application of the law to the facts of a case. It doesn't matter whether it's the sentencing or guilt phase...
Sure it does. They'd already weighed the facts of the case and found him guilty. They'd moved on to the sentencing phase and it appears that some jurists had personal objections to the death penalty with respect to it's inherent nature. That is to say, whether it should be permitted of the state to apply the death penalty in any case. If they had acted in contravention of Colorado law and decided that the state couldn't execute because their personal beliefs forbade it, you'd have a case. But Colorado law permitted the application of the death penalty. What did they nullify?
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
What did I miss?
The first post?
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
They'd moved on to the sentencing phase and it appears that some jurists had personal objections to the death penalty with respect to it's inherent nature. That is to say, whether it should be permitted of the state to apply the death penalty in any case.
I agree that would be different, but I haven't seen that interpretation of what happened. It certainly doesn't appear in the article linked in this thread. And if that was the case, as Towel pointed out, those jurors should have been excluded at voir dire.
And the argument is still nullification. If the jurors say "should we impose the death penalty?" and, rather than determining whether the conditions of their jury instructions are met, they go to the Bible to make their decision, that's nullification. (And I want to reiterate that I think juries clearly have the power to nullify.)
I don't understand the distinction you're making between guilt and sentencing. Of course nullification can occur at sentencing - that's what death qualification is all about. Let me ask you this: What about the jury that flipped the coin? Is that nullification? Or does your "but it was sentencing" argument apply to that one too?
Originally posted by BRussell
But do you think death qualification is fair to the defendant during the guilt phase?
By death qualification, you mean excluding prospective jurors based on their attitude towards the death penalty? It's not so much a question of fairness as the applicability of the law. Deciding on death (I think) must be unanimous. So selecting someone for a jury who declares that he will not, in any circumstances, vote for death would render the law meaningless. It would also make the trial itself meaningless, as much as would selecting a juror who declares he will always vote to acquit. For fairness, the process needs jurors who have not made up their minds ahead of time.
Originally posted by Towel
By death qualification, you mean excluding prospective jurors based on their attitude towards the death penalty? It's not so much a question of fairness as the applicability of the law. Deciding on death (I think) must be unanimous. So selecting someone for a jury who declares that he will not, in any circumstances, vote for death would render the law meaningless. It would also make the trial itself meaningless, as much as would selecting a juror who declares he will always vote to acquit. For fairness, the process needs jurors who have not made up their minds ahead of time.
We posted at the same time.
Yes, but think about who you end up with when you have a death-qualified jury. You basically have a liberal-free jury. And blacks are excluded more often. And skeptics of the criminal justice system - basically anyone who might not be so prosecutor-friendly.
The problem is that death-qualified juries are more likely to convict. So in those very cases where you want the jury to be extra careful, you get a biased jury. Prosecutors know this very well, and often call for the death penalty, even if they otherwise wouldn't, because they believe they'll be more likely to get their conviction. It's a really bad idea, IMO. I think if they want the death penalty, they ought to just pick a jury and let the chips fall. If the prosecution is unlucky enough to get a juror who believes a person is guilty, but they're against the death penatly, sobeit. But it's been upheld by the Supreme Court several times.
Originally posted by BRussell
The first post?
That's hardly reflective of the tone of the entire thread.
I agree that would be different, but I haven't seen that interpretation of what happened. It certainly doesn't appear in the article linked in this thread. And if that was the case, as Towel pointed out, those jurors should have been excluded at voir dire.
Sure and it would have been a prosecutorial screwup that would have had to stand.
And the argument is still nullification. If the jurors say "should we impose the death penalty?" and, rather than determining whether the conditions of their jury instructions are met, they go to the Bible to make their decision, that's nullification. (And I want to reiterate that I think juries clearly have the power to nullify.)
I don't understand the distinction you're making between guilt and sentencing. Of course nullification can occur at sentencing - that's what death qualification is all about...
I didn't say it couldn't ocurr at sentencing. I simply reitereated that they HAD considered the facts of the case. That's how they determined the defendant was guilty. Moreover, the only way nullification could have ocurred during sentencing was if they chose NOT to apply the death penalty due to their personal beliefs. It appears that Scripture was used to permit the jurors to impose a sentence the law already allowed. Or are you arguing that this case didn't meet the qualifications for the death penalty?
Let me ask you this: What about the jury that flipped the coin? Is that nullification? Or does your "but it was sentencing" argument apply to that one too?
What about it? Apples and oranges.
Originally posted by BRussell
I think if they want the death penalty, they ought to just pick a jury and let the chips fall.
It's a tough question, and may be another reason why the death penalty is inherently unfair. The problem I forsee with "don't ask, don't tell" is that the decision of death or not is then essentially random. It would not be based on the merits of the case, but the luck of the draw - whether the jury is seeded with a death penalty opponent. You can't let judicial questions or life and death hang on luck of the draw. But you're right, instead we get a system of capital cases biased towards conviction. Maybe that means we should have larger pools of alternates for capital cases, and re-question jurors before the sentencing phase.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
It appears that Scripture was used to permit the jurors to impose a sentence the law already allowed.
The law allowed, but did not require. The jury cannot believe that conviction = death, regardless.
Originally posted by Towel
The law allowed, but did not require...
Yeah, so? Apart from this controversy or any misgivings you may have about capital punishment do you think this case met the qualifications for the death penalty? Again, I'm opposed to the death penalty but from the facts that have been reported it sure seems to me this case qualifies. I mean, as long as there is a death penalty, this case clears the threshold for it's application.
The jury cannot believe that conviction = death, regardless.
That's why there's a separate sentencing phase.
Originally posted by Scott
Like I said at the top. This is nothing more than an activist judge handing one over to anti-death penalty lawyers. A new legalistic trick to get a death sentence overturned.
No, just a group of idiots using a moldy tome instead of the letter of the law.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Again, I'm opposed to the death penalty but from the facts that have been reported it sure seems to me this case qualifies. I mean, as long as there is a death penalty, this case clears the threshold for it's application.
How do you know? What is the jury told to consider during sentencing in Colorado? I have no idea, and I couldn't find out with a quick search. But I guarantee that they're given very specific guidelines to consider when deliberating (e.g., will this person commit further acts of violence), and they're probably told not to refer to outside information in making their judgment.
They might have used the Bible to convince him/her that the sentence of death was in the best interest of society.
The future result of this could also be that people who are sympathetic enough to insure the death penalty is not applied are instead tossed off juries.
Turning the other cheek is not what I would call a generalized concept with regard to society. If anything this could increase the number of death penalty sentences.
Nick
Originally posted by BRussell
But I guarantee that they're given very specific guidelines to consider when deliberating (e.g., will this person commit further acts of violence), and they're probably told not to refer to outside information in making their judgment.
You are right. This point is essential, they have to follow guidelines, and this guidelines are the law.
The bible or any holy book are not law guidelines even if they are the roots of the moral of nearly all civilisations.
Perhaps Scott is right when he assume that the judge use this argument to overturns the trial because he is anti-death. Or it's possible to assume, that this judge have the highest professional standarts, and want that the jury is following perfectly the procedure. Who knows ? (perhaps only the judge if he honnest with himself ...).
One thing is sure, there is no good trials if the procedure is not respected. In the contrary you have only parody of justice. Even if this man deserve death, he have the right to have a fair and honnest trial. And fair include respecting the procedure and the guidelines.
Originally posted by trumptman
They might have used the Bible to convince him/her that the sentence of death was in the best interest of society.
Equally wrong. If their juridical arguments can´t convince him then there is nothing to do.
I don't see that the Bible was being used here to make any evidentiary analysis -- if these are indeed the only related passages the jurors referenced. These Biblical quotes relate to what constitutes fair punishment, and may have only been the jurors way of coming to grips with the results their voting could have.
Originally posted by trumptman
[BThe future result of this could also be that people who are sympathetic enough to insure the death penalty is not applied are instead tossed off juries.[/B]
That is the case now.
Originally posted by shetline
It's up to a jury to decide if there is sufficient evidence to convict, not to decide the nature of the punishment should a defendant be found guilty...
...except in capital cases.