In all honesty, if there is a bible in the hotel room, there should be equal access to all religious and philosophical discourse on the subject of the trial, in this case capital punishment, or there should be none. Certainly a bible quoting freak will make it apparent to the lawyers on the get go that he knows his bible as much as a person who firmly stands that the death penalty is wrong... A jury is there to serve as critical brains of the fact of the case, their backgrounds present but hopefully nullified by the diversity of the group that is why there are 12 and not 1, discourse within the jury room should follow what is known about the members of the jury. Anything that causes a single juror to change their mind that falls outside of the trial info is irrelevent and should not be permitted.
In someways I would argue for a professional Juror system but that is wrought with problems of its own accord.
here's another thought to consider while you're at it.
there's still no evidence that the bible was actually brought into the jury room for deliberation, just that it was read at some point and then referred to.
if that's the case, considering that every hotel in the US has a bible in it, and almost every jury in a capitol case is sequestered in a hotel room (longer deliberations on average i'm sure), then by this logic couldn't every single verdict be challenged?
unless they brought it into the deliberation room and were quoting it while deciding the verdict, this judge screwed up, IMO.
here's another thought to consider while you're at it.
there's still no evidence that the bible was actually brought into the jury room for deliberation, just that it was read at some point and then referred to.
if that's the case, considering that every hotel in the US has a bible in it, and almost every jury in a capitol case is sequestered in a hotel room (longer deliberations on average i'm sure), then by this logic couldn't every single verdict be challenged?
unless they brought it into the deliberation room and were quoting it while deciding the verdict, this judge screwed up, IMO.
Its easy enough to remove all sources of reading in hotel rooms from all future capitol cases though...
But it's not just reading that was a problem. They could of course read novels if they wanted, for example. It's the fact that one of the jurors said the Bible was used and discussed as a basis for decision-making during deliberations.
But it's not just reading that was a problem. They could of course read novels if they wanted, for example. It's the fact that one of the jurors said the Bible was used and discussed as a basis for decision-making during deliberations.
Yes, but what if you have a Muslim who uses the Quran for the basis of his decision-making?
Yes, but what if you have a Muslim who uses the Quran for the basis of his decision-making?
No Muslims on juries?
Its not a matter of using it if the knowledge exists at jury selection. But if the juror in question openned a quran in the jury room during deliberations then yes, the trial should be thrown out...
Its not a matter of using it if the knowledge exists at jury selection. But if the juror in question openned a quran in the jury room during deliberations then yes, the trial should be thrown out...
Any serious Muslim will memorize large portions of the Quran---he wouldn't need the book on hand at all.
Any serious Muslim will memorize large portions of the Quran---he wouldn't need the book on hand at all.
I guess that would make it a thought-crime.
Let it be then. If a bible thumper memorized his bible before trial let it be. The point is these people refered to a document during deliberations that was not pertinent directly to the case at hand...
"....According to the statement, two jurors were holding out for a life sentence until a fellow juror with a Bible persuaded them to change their minds....."
I only brought this in because I think the jurors were able to determine the penalty as well.
So you are left in the tricky position of controlling the thoughts of jurors---that certain texts should not be thought about when diciding how to punish the guilty.
...it is impossible to separate people from their beliefs at that level. We have a constitutional right of freedom of religion---there is a conflict here.
I'm not sure this is such a conflict. How many people's religious beliefs lead them to think, passionately and unremittingly, that every murderer should be put to death? Very few, I'd guess. All a juror needs to be able to do is judge a case on its merits, according to the law. This jury was surely instructed on what to do. They weren't debating the justness of the death penalty, just its applicability to this case. "An eye for an eye" has no place when you're deciding if this particular convict should die, because it's irrelevant to the law. Same with the Quran and any philisophical text. They're aren't deciding if it's "right" for the state to kill someone in the abstract, just the very concrete issue of how the law applies to this case. I imagine they're explicitly instructed of that distinction.
"An eye for an eye" has no place when you're deciding if this particular convict should die, because it's irrelevant to the law.
That is a an oxymoron....law is an institutionalization what we believe is right and wrong. If this is like the Ohio case, they were beyond the guilty/not guilty deliberations and into the severity of the punishment....
-but if the attorneys could help us out here it would be nice--
....they would be within the law to go either way. When an individual makes that decision (s)he makes it based on what (s)he believes to be the best fit. That could be based on any one of many belief systems---some explicitly theistic and some not. When you get to the point (as we have on this thread) to say that people with certain personal belief systems MAY NOT refer to those beliefs, you have simply violated that person's civil rights.
It is no one's business but their own what a person's personal beliefs are.
"If any case merits the death penalty, there cannot be serious debate about this case being that case," wrote Judge John J. Vigil - the judge who threw the verdict out. The debate isn't whether this case qualifies as a death penalty case. It's whether the jurors did something unconstitutional when they consulted the Bible. The judge says they did.
"If any case merits the death penalty, there cannot be serious debate about this case being that case," wrote Judge John J. Vigil - the judge who threw the verdict out. The debate isn't whether this case qualifies as a death penalty case. It's whether the jurors did something unconstitutional when they consulted the Bible. The judge says they did.
it doesnt have to be unconstitutional for the trial to be thrown out...
But it's not just reading that was a problem. They could of course read novels if they wanted, for example. It's the fact that one of the jurors said the Bible was used and discussed as a basis for decision-making during deliberations.
So reading the Bible is okay just so long as you're not a believer. \
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
That is the case now.
...except in capital cases.
Yes, but moreso....
Nick
In someways I would argue for a professional Juror system but that is wrought with problems of its own accord.
there's still no evidence that the bible was actually brought into the jury room for deliberation, just that it was read at some point and then referred to.
if that's the case, considering that every hotel in the US has a bible in it, and almost every jury in a capitol case is sequestered in a hotel room (longer deliberations on average i'm sure), then by this logic couldn't every single verdict be challenged?
unless they brought it into the deliberation room and were quoting it while deciding the verdict, this judge screwed up, IMO.
Originally posted by alcimedes
here's another thought to consider while you're at it.
there's still no evidence that the bible was actually brought into the jury room for deliberation, just that it was read at some point and then referred to.
if that's the case, considering that every hotel in the US has a bible in it, and almost every jury in a capitol case is sequestered in a hotel room (longer deliberations on average i'm sure), then by this logic couldn't every single verdict be challenged?
unless they brought it into the deliberation room and were quoting it while deciding the verdict, this judge screwed up, IMO.
Its easy enough to remove all sources of reading in hotel rooms from all future capitol cases though...
Originally posted by BRussell
But it's not just reading that was a problem. They could of course read novels if they wanted, for example. It's the fact that one of the jurors said the Bible was used and discussed as a basis for decision-making during deliberations.
Yes, but what if you have a Muslim who uses the Quran for the basis of his decision-making?
No Muslims on juries?
Originally posted by ena
Yes, but what if you have a Muslim who uses the Quran for the basis of his decision-making?
No Muslims on juries?
Its not a matter of using it if the knowledge exists at jury selection. But if the juror in question openned a quran in the jury room during deliberations then yes, the trial should be thrown out...
Originally posted by billybobsky
Its not a matter of using it if the knowledge exists at jury selection. But if the juror in question openned a quran in the jury room during deliberations then yes, the trial should be thrown out...
Any serious Muslim will memorize large portions of the Quran---he wouldn't need the book on hand at all.
I guess that would make it a thought-crime.
Originally posted by ena
Any serious Muslim will memorize large portions of the Quran---he wouldn't need the book on hand at all.
I guess that would make it a thought-crime.
Let it be then. If a bible thumper memorized his bible before trial let it be. The point is these people refered to a document during deliberations that was not pertinent directly to the case at hand...
"....According to the statement, two jurors were holding out for a life sentence until a fellow juror with a Bible persuaded them to change their minds....."
I only brought this in because I think the jurors were able to determine the penalty as well.
So you are left in the tricky position of controlling the thoughts of jurors---that certain texts should not be thought about when diciding how to punish the guilty.
That's not possible.
Originally posted by ena
...it is impossible to separate people from their beliefs at that level. We have a constitutional right of freedom of religion---there is a conflict here.
I'm not sure this is such a conflict. How many people's religious beliefs lead them to think, passionately and unremittingly, that every murderer should be put to death? Very few, I'd guess. All a juror needs to be able to do is judge a case on its merits, according to the law. This jury was surely instructed on what to do. They weren't debating the justness of the death penalty, just its applicability to this case. "An eye for an eye" has no place when you're deciding if this particular convict should die, because it's irrelevant to the law. Same with the Quran and any philisophical text. They're aren't deciding if it's "right" for the state to kill someone in the abstract, just the very concrete issue of how the law applies to this case. I imagine they're explicitly instructed of that distinction.
Originally posted by Towel
"An eye for an eye" has no place when you're deciding if this particular convict should die, because it's irrelevant to the law.
That is a an oxymoron....law is an institutionalization what we believe is right and wrong. If this is like the Ohio case, they were beyond the guilty/not guilty deliberations and into the severity of the punishment....
-but if the attorneys could help us out here it would be nice--
....they would be within the law to go either way. When an individual makes that decision (s)he makes it based on what (s)he believes to be the best fit. That could be based on any one of many belief systems---some explicitly theistic and some not. When you get to the point (as we have on this thread) to say that people with certain personal belief systems MAY NOT refer to those beliefs, you have simply violated that person's civil rights.
It is no one's business but their own what a person's personal beliefs are.
Originally posted by BRussell
How do you know?
"If any case merits the death penalty, there cannot be serious debate about this case being that case," wrote Judge John J. Vigil - the judge who threw the verdict out. The debate isn't whether this case qualifies as a death penalty case. It's whether the jurors did something unconstitutional when they consulted the Bible. The judge says they did.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
"If any case merits the death penalty, there cannot be serious debate about this case being that case," wrote Judge John J. Vigil - the judge who threw the verdict out. The debate isn't whether this case qualifies as a death penalty case. It's whether the jurors did something unconstitutional when they consulted the Bible. The judge says they did.
it doesnt have to be unconstitutional for the trial to be thrown out...
Originally posted by BRussell
But it's not just reading that was a problem. They could of course read novels if they wanted, for example. It's the fact that one of the jurors said the Bible was used and discussed as a basis for decision-making during deliberations.
So reading the Bible is okay just so long as you're not a believer.
Originally posted by billybobsky
it doesnt have to be unconstitutional for the trial to be thrown out...
Well yes, but that was the reason the judge gave for overturning the verdict.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Well yes, but that was the reason the judge gave for overturning the verdict.
another judge could have cited any other reason...
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
So reading the Bible is okay just so long as you're not a believer.
Not believing, but discussing during deliberations when you're given the specific criteria to use, and told to use no other criteria.
Originally posted by BRussell
you're given the specific criteria
.....what criteria, specifically?