NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/29/bible.deliberations.ap/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/29/bible.deliberations.ap/index.html
Not that it is, only that it is becomming more like one.

Not that it is, only that it is becomming more like one.
As evidenced by the fact that Christians can't be jurors at the same time?

Fucking christian wackos. I, for one, am glad for the murderer. Sounds weird, doesn't it?

Using Bibles in courts... Fucking ridiculous.

Fucking christian wackos. I, for one, am glad for the murderer. Sounds weird, doesn't it?

Using Bibles in courts... Fucking ridiculous.
He's a rapist too. But you'd rather let a rapist/murderer off than let Christians be jurors? You have some messed up priorities.

As evidenced by the fact that Christians can't be jurors at the same time?

Did you not read what you linked to? Christians can be jurors, but they are not to judge people from standards in their holy book, but from standards found in actual law. Consulting the Bible when deciding on a legal judgment was gross incompetence by these people.

The courtroom is not a place for religion, you can look for advice in the Bible in your own time, but not in a state court room, and besides they are to judge by the law of the courts, not the Bible.

Yeah, consulting a Bible to help them make a decision twernt right.

He's a rapist too. But you'd rather let a rapist/murderer off than let Christians be jurors? You have some messed up priorities.
It's not that, it's just the the law and religion/superstition, should be kept separate. Making legal decisions based on the Bible is clearly unacceptable.

The courtroom is not a place for religion, you can look for advice in the Bible in your own time, but not in a state court room.

Exactly. Though I find it funny that they force you to swear on a Bible before you testify.

He's a rapist too. But you'd rather let a rapist/murderer off than let Christians be jurors?

I'd much rather see criminals go free than have them judged from a Biblical perspective. Or a Hindu perspective. Or a Bhuddhist perspective.

Christians/religious people who can judge from basis in law are more than welcome to be jurors. Those who cannot, should not be jurors.

He's a rapist too. But you'd rather let a rapist/murderer off than let Christians be jurors? You have some messed up priorities.

Did you bother to read the article before going off on your own snit?

Nothing about disqualifying Christians from juries.

On the other hand, jurors are supposed to follow jury instructions. They are not supposed to go look up outside sources and use them as the basis for their verdict. That is a pretty simple premise. That it was the Bible that various jurors consulted and were arguing about is not the point.

And, he had not been "let off." He is still convicted. His death sentence has been overturned. But he can be resentenced after a new hearing.

Facts are inconvenient little buggers, huh?

Exactly. Though I find it funny that they force you to swear on a Bible before you testify.
If I ever have jury duty I will skip that part and see how they handle it.

Christians are all evil people anyways.
Why should the US have to tolerate their parasitic existence? I for one would ban all heretical hypocrites, known more commonly as Christians.

Murder is far more acceptable than the blood-thirsty religion of Christianity. Rape on the other hand, is borderlining being just as evil.

I'm not against religion, all religions except christianity are ok.


Watch some christian say "Christians are good people!" Fucking lying life-thief!

Did you bother to read the article before going off on your own snit?

Nothing about disqualifying Christians from juries.

On the other hand, jurors are supposed to follow jury instructions. They are not supposed to go look up outside sources and use them as the basis for their verdict. That is a pretty simple premise. That it was the Bible that various jurors consulted and were arguing about is not the point.
It merely says that you should not bring your religion into a court decision, not that Christians cannot be jurors.

Exactly. Though I find it funny that they force you to swear on a Bible before you testify.

You don't have to swear on the Bible. The oath can be said without any religious references what so ever, and if I understand correctly, a lot of courts do just ask you to swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

Christians are all evil people anyways.
Why should the US have to tolerate their parasitic existence? I for one would ban all heretical hypocrites, known more commonly as Christians.

Murder is far more acceptable than the blood-thirsty religion of Christianity. Rape on the other hand, is borderlining being just as evil.

I'm not against religion, all religions except christianity are ok.


Watch some christian say "Christians are good people!" Fucking lying life-thief!
I disagree with you, you generalized far too much.

You don't have to swear on the Bible. The oath can be said without any religious references what so ever, and if I understand correctly, a lot of courts do just ask you to swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.
Thank god. *shifty*

Christians are all evil people anyways.
Why should the US have to tolerate their parasitic existence? I for one would ban all heretical hypocrites, known more commonly as Christians.

Murder is far more acceptable than the blood-thirsty religion of Christianity. Rape on the other hand, is borderlining being just as evil.

I'm not against religion, all religions except christianity are ok.


Watch some christian say "Christians are good people!" Fucking lying life-thief!
Oooh reported for trolling

It merely says that you should not bring your religion into a court decision, not that Christians cannot be jurors.

Actually it does not even say that. But we're on the same side here.

Christians are all evil people anyways.
Why should the US have to tolerate their parasitic existence? I for one would ban all heretical hypocrites, known more commonly as Christians.

Murder is far more acceptable than the blood-thirsty religion of Christianity. Rape on the other hand, is borderlining being just as evil.

I'm not against religion, all religions except christianity are ok.


Watch some christian say "Christians are good people!" Fucking lying life-thief!

Christians are good people! (that was in qoutes but the next was not, was I suppose to write that as well?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/29/bible.deliberations.ap/index.html
What kind of idiocy is "eye for an eye" anyway? Didn't Jesus revoke it by telling everyone to turn the other cheek?

America isn't even close to being a theocracy. This is an isolated incident and it involves members of the public, not government officials. Although a jury does represent the will of the government, the government being composed of the common citizen when you get right down to it, but I think we can safely make a distinction in this case.

Most Americans, while being religious people, don't want a religious government. The word moral is thrown around often enough by people who don't know the difference between it and ethical, unless you count politicians who know damn well what the difference is and just don't care. But not many people want a government that answers to a god. Don't be fooled by the loud, angry minority!

Actually it does not even say that. But we're on the same side here.
Thanks for reminding me, I let my views seap in too much.

You don't have to swear on the Bible. The oath can be said without any religious references what so ever, and if I understand correctly, a lot of courts do just ask you to swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

Correct.

Courts using the Bible at all are dwindling and not using it is always an option.

You don't have to swear on the Bible. The oath can be said without any religious references what so ever, and if I understand correctly, a lot of courts do just ask you to swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.
That's nice, considering that the Bible allegedly only contains a small portion of the Gospel and therefore might not represent the "whole truth".

America isn't even close to being a theocracy. This is an isolated incident and it involves members of the public, not government officials. Although a jury does represent the will of the government, the government being composed of the common citizen when you get right down to it, but I think we can safely make a distinction in this case.

Most Americans, while being religious people, don't want a religious government. The word moral is thrown around often enough by people who don't know the difference between it and ethical, unless you count politicians who know damn well what the difference is and just don't care. But not many people want a government that answers to a god. Don't be fooled by the loud, angry minority!
Politicians know the difference? :eek: News to me. I don't think we are one, only that we seem to have more charateristics of one.

You don't have to swear on the Bible. The oath can be said without any religious references what so ever, and if I understand correctly, a lot of courts do just ask you to swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

Fair enough. But in all of the courthouses I've been in, there's never been another option. They force you to repeat after them, even the bullshit "so help me god" part.

Of course this is Texas, which is a shitpile of a state these days.

What kind of idiocy is "eye for an eye" anyway? Didn't Jesus revoke it by telling everyone to turn the other cheek?

Imagine the reaction by some religious conservatives if the jury had opted to release the criminal on account of "turn the other cheek"? It'd be so funny...

What kind of idiocy is "eye for an eye" anyway? Didn't Jesus revoke it by telling everyone to turn the other cheek?

Yes. It's amazing how many people I see every day that claim to be Christian but don't know what the hell the religion actually teaches. Most people learn by word of mouth as opposed to reading. Granted, it does take quite a bit of reading to become knowledgable in the church's stances and reasons for those stances on any given issue. But people should know something like that off the top of their head whether they're Christian or not.

Thank god. *shifty*

*points*

Nyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!

Politicians know the difference? :eek: News to me. I don't think we are one, only that we seem to have more charateristics of one.

Oh sure, they know the difference and they know most people don't. It's manipulation without it TECHNICALLY being manipulation.

The courtroom is not a place for religion, you can look for advice in the Bible in your own time, but not in a state court room, and besides they are to judge by the law of the courts, not the Bible.

no kidding, very scary...

Fair enough. But in all of the courthouses I've been in, there's never been another option. They force you to repeat after them, even the bullshit "so help me god" part.

I don't think it's legal for them to force you to swear like that at all, Texas or not. If they do, someone needs to contact an organisation like the ACLU or something.

I don't think it's legal for them to force you to swear like that at all, Texas or not. If they do, someone needs to contact an organisation like the ACLU or something.

Well, they always force people to swear upon it. I've never seen otherwise, even on nationally televised trials.

Oh sure, they know the difference and they know most people don't. It's manipulation without it TECHNICALLY being manipulation.
If you keep the population ignorant, its easier to control and manipulate.

Oh how I wish Jesussaves was still around...

Imagine the reaction by some religious conservatives if the jury had opted to release the criminal on account of "turn the other cheek"? It'd be so funny...
Teehee... :D

Exactly. Though I find it funny that they force you to swear on a Bible before you testify.

It depends on the State and or the Judge. I sat on a murder case and they didn't make us swear on a Bible......

Oh how I wish Jesussaves was still around...
You mean Drunk Commies (reborn)? Speaking of which where is that ol' bastard?

Well, they always force people to swear upon it. I've never seen otherwise, even on nationally televised trials.

Have you seen anyone object and be forced? Maybe all those people just opted for that kind of oath? Atheism is apparently rare in the US, if I understand correctly.

Exactly. Though I find it funny that they force you to swear on a Bible before you testify.

Bible is the default (although it really shouldn't be). You can swear on whatever you want, be it the Koran, the Torah, the Constitution, etc. If your religion forbids swearing, you can simply promise to tell the truth.

If you keep the population ignorant, its easier to control and manipulate.

Good thing there's always the option of learning. Everyone is wary of a politician. If you call them on their shit in a crowded room, everyone will gang up on them regardless of whether they know what you're talking about. Herd mentality works both ways.

I have more faith in the knowledge that at least half of the population of our country has. I'm just in a cynical mood right now I guess.

Imagine the reaction by some religious conservatives if the jury had opted to release the criminal on account of "turn the other cheek"? It'd be so funny...

What a gross misinterpretation of the statement *that* would be.

You mean Drunk Commies (reborn)? Speaking of which where is that ol' bastard?
He was most recently seen in his own threads ('Armenian Genocide Poll', '...blow up a christian')

Have you seen anyone object and be forced? Maybe all those people just opted for that kind of oath? Atheism is apparently rare in the US, if I understand correctly.

Yeah, that sounds about right. Seems like they would opt for that kind of oath.

What a gross misinterpretation of the statement *that* would be.

Yeah, but it's perfectly feasable that they could have come to such a conclusion. I wonder if they would still demand that the Bible be allowed to influence rulings then...

Good thing there's always the option of learning. Everyone is wary of a politician. If you call them on their shit in a crowded room, everyone will gang up on them regardless of whether they know what you're talking about. Herd mentality works both ways.

I have more faith in the knowledge that at least half of the population of our country has. I'm just in a cynical mood right now I guess.
That was cynical, hm I must have developed a tolerance or something. Your point is clear, however.

All Religion Should Be Banned! It Only Causes Hatred and Death!

All Religion Should Be Banned! It Only Causes Hatred and Death!
*cough* Flame.*cough*
*implodes*

The point about releasing him on the basis of "turn the other cheek" may not be just a joke.
Jurors, when considering a death penalty, have to be unanimous for the death penalty to be effected. If, amongst the twelve randomly (or not so randomly it appears now) selected members of the American public, there happens to be a Christian, not an unlikely event, and this Christian is aware of the precept of mercy, again not unlikely, then that person's beliefs are going to affect the sentencing anyway.

What hapens if a juror is a priest, is he or she not allowed to express their opinion, etc.

The problem in this case was the explicit use of the Bible as an authority. Should people be concerned, however, about the pervasive use of religious texts in forming the opinions of those who will someday serve on a jury?

If, religious principles are to be kept out of jury deliberations, then you have to have a juries that consist only of agnostics or atheists. Hardly representative of the people of the USA.

It's not that, it's just the the law and religion/superstition, should be kept separate. Making legal decisions based on the Bible is clearly unacceptable.
Are you implying that Christianity is a superstition? Tsk tsk...it's that kind of talk that's going to earn you a spot in the burning bowels of Hell...

The point about releasing him on the basis of "turn the other cheek" may not be just a joke.
Jurors, when considering a death penalty, have to be unanimous for the death penalty to be effected. If, amongst the twelve randomly (or not so randomly it appears now) selected members of the American public, there happens to be a Christian, not an unlikely event, and this Christian is aware of the precept of mercy, again not unlikely, then that person's beliefs are going to affect the sentencing anyway.

What hapens if a juror is a priest, is he or she not allowed to express their opinion, etc.

The problem in this case was the explicit use of the Bible as an authority. Should people be concerned, however, about the pervasive use of religious texts in forming the opinions of those who will someday serve on a jury?

If, religious principles are to be kept out of jury deliberations, then you have to have a juries that consist only of agnostics or atheists. Hardly representative of the people of the USA.
Not necessarily.

Are you implying that Christianity is a superstition? Tsk tsk...it's that kind of talk that's going to earn you a spot in the burning bowels of Hell...

Way to misread a post. You deserve an award for incompetence.

Way to misread a post. You deserve an award for incompetence.
You're medal idea look very good right now.

The point about releasing him on the basis of "turn the other cheek" may not be just a joke.
Jurors, when considering a death penalty, have to be unanimous for the death penalty to be effected. If, amongst the twelve randomly (or not so randomly it appears now) selected members of the American public, there happens to be a Christian, not an unlikely event, and this Christian is aware of the precept of mercy, again not unlikely, then that person's beliefs are going to affect the sentencing anyway.

Of course, "turn the other cheek" has nothing to do with mercy, but with passive resistance to tyranny.

Of course, your point still stands since mercy is a big part of most Christians' beliefs.

If, religious principles are to be kept out of jury deliberations, then you have to have a juries that consist only of agnostics or atheists. Hardly representative of the people of the USA.

There is a rather large difference between "I personally voted because of my own beliefs" and "I snuck in Bible verses to read to the rest of the jurors to try and convince them to vote my way."

Are you implying that Christianity is a superstition? Tsk tsk...it's that kind of talk that's going to earn you a spot in the burning bowels of Hell...
I'm implying that all religions are superstition. ;)

Are you implying that Christianity is a superstition?

It isn't? :confused:

Not necessarily.

How else do you keep jury deliberations free of religious principles?

I'm implying that all religions are superstition. ;)

You will be the fifth person to receive my special award! Well, once I learn how to work metal... And once I get the materials to do so...

Damnit.

Edit --- And Fass will be the sixth!

You will be the fifth person to receive my special award! Well, once I learn how to work metal... And once I get the materials to do so...

Damnit.

Edit --- And Fass will be the sixth!
Yay! What's the award for? :p

How else do you keep jury deliberations free of religious principles?
Bloody hell...you know it IS possible to be secular and not be atheist or agnostic. Just honor seperation of church and state.

You will be the fifth person to receive my special award! Well, once I learn how to work metal... And once I get the materials to do so...

Damnit.

Edit --- And Fass will be the sixth!
Can I be the 7th?

Yay! What's the award for? :p

It's "Potaria's Special Award for Outstanding People"! In other words, people who agree with my views :D.

Did you not read what you linked to? Christians can be jurors, but they are not to judge people from standards in their holy book, but from standards found in actual law. Consulting the Bible when deciding on a legal judgment was gross incompetence by these people.

Last I checked, brutal rape and murder is grounds for the death penalty in Colorado. Just because a few jurors turned to the bible for guidance doesn't mean they turned from the standards found in actual law.

It's "Potaria's Special Award for Outstanding People"! In other words, people who agree with my views :D.
Then who came up with the award for outstanding jerk? Thats what i wanted... :(

It's "Potaria's Special Award for Outstanding People"! In other words, people who agree with my views :D.
Yay! Your definition of outstanding is the same as mine. ;)

The point about releasing him on the basis of "turn the other cheek" may not be just a joke.
Jurors, when considering a death penalty, have to be unanimous for the death penalty to be effected. If, amongst the twelve randomly (or not so randomly it appears now) selected members of the American public, there happens to be a Christian, not an unlikely event, and this Christian is aware of the precept of mercy, again not unlikely, then that person's beliefs are going to affect the sentencing anyway.

What hapens if a juror is a priest, is he or she not allowed to express their opinion, etc.

The problem in this case was the explicit use of the Bible as an authority. Should people be concerned, however, about the pervasive use of religious texts in forming the opinions of those who will someday serve on a jury?

If, religious principles are to be kept out of jury deliberations, then you have to have a juries that consist only of agnostics or atheists. Hardly representative of the people of the USA.

Scarily, the pro-death penalty poweres that be have found a neat little way around this. You cannot serve on a jury in a death-eligible case if you would not be willing to impose the death penalty. Anyone with objections to the death penalty -- religious or otherwise -- is automatically excluded.

As for the broader issue you raise, jurors are allowed to bring their own opinions and background with them into the jury room. They are required, however, to follow the jury instructions.

What is actually argued or discussed in the jury room is generally sacrosanct. Bringing in outside material, however, is not allowed.

Edit --- And Fass will be the sixth!

First you supply conga music, and now this! Potaria, you charming person, you! :fluffle:

Yay! Your definition of outstanding is the same as mine. ;)

Then you might just be up for a second!

Edit --- And it looks like Fass might be as well...!

Actualy it's becomming an Autocracy.
"Behold a Pale Horse"--by, William Cooper

All Religion Should Be Banned! It Only Causes Hatred and Death!

You're funny. You're just trying to start something, aren't you? :sniper:

Last I checked, brutal rape and murder is grounds for the death penalty in Colorado. Just because a few jurors turned to the bible for guidance doesn't mean they turned from the standards found in actual law.

As there is no way of knowing that, the ruling should be reversed. And it was.

Of course, "turn the other cheek" has nothing to do with mercy, but with passive resistance to tyranny.

Of course, your point still stands since mercy is a big part of most Christians' beliefs.

There is a rather large difference between "I personally voted because of my own beliefs" and "I snuck in Bible verses to read to the rest of the jurors to try and convince them to vote my way."

I accept that there is a difference, but how much of one? This is why I raised the question about the priest. If someone can quote the bible from memory, and many devoted Christians can, then the actual book being present is irrelevant. The deliberations are being affected by religious tennets. How do you stop that happening.
(Jury moderators? "Stop flamming in the corner. You in the middle on the left, a final spam warning" :eek: )

The options are, it seems, to restrict jury service to non religious people, or to accept that religious tennets do make up part of the belief structure of the American people, and allow them. If you do the latter, what difference does it make if it is in written form, or by memory?

I prefer the third option, scrap trial by jury, have judgements made by those qualified to do it. (This could be judges, it could be committees of educated and scrutinised peole such as academics or retired servicemen etc.)

What is actually argued or discussed in the jury room is generally sacrosanct. Bringing in outside material, however, is not allowed.

Exactly!

If one of the jurors had said during deliberations "An eye for an eye you know" or something along those lines, or if they had even quoted the exact text (because they memorized it or whatever), that would be one thing. However, they actually went home, wrote down Bible verses, and brought them into the deliberation room. That really isn't different from going home, copying a newspaper article and bringing it in or going home, finding an old yearbook and bringing it in - it simply isn't allowed. The merits of the case must be discussed on the merits of the case, without outside material.

Rosencratz and Guildenstern are dead. That should shed some incite.

Bloody hell...you know it IS possible to be secular and not be atheist or agnostic. Just honor seperation of church and state.

Yes I know it is possible, the question becomes how does one determine who does this? I phrased the point as a question, not as an assertion, as there could be alternatives. Suggest how one determines if a person with religious convictions will honour the seperation of church and state, because, as this case shows, it can not be assumed.

Yes I know it is possible, the question becomes how does one determine who does this? I phrased the point as a question, not as an assertion, as there could be alternatives. Suggest how one determines if a person with religious convictions will honour the seperation of church and state, because, as this case shows, it can not be assumed.
By better screening, but you seemed to suggest that only atheists and agnostics are secular.

The options are, it seems, to restrict jury service to non religious people, or to accept that religious tennets do make up part of the belief structure of the American people, and allow them. If you do the latter, what difference does it make if it is in written form, or by memory?

Even a priest can agree to make decisions based upon the law.

Let's take a less obvious example. Suppose a woman was cheating on her husband with someone who beat her up and nearly killed her. She can sue this man and, if he did it, he should be punished under the law because what he did was illegal.

Now, let's say someone came in quoting the OT and demonstrated that a woman committing adultery was supposed to be stoned to death. As such, they might claim that she actually got less of a punishment than she deserved and they should just let the guy go. This is *obviously* in opposition to the law.

The problem is that we cannot allow our legal bodies to have the appearance of any such bias. While we know that many will make votes based on their own personal religious beliefs (although I would argue that they *shouldn't*), we must avoid any appearance of an obvious bias.

I prefer the third option, scrap trial by jury, have judgements made by those qualified to do it. (This could be judges, it could be committees of educated and scrutinised peole such as academics or retired servicemen etc.)

Who decides who is qualified and who gets to decide?

As there is no way of knowing that, the ruling should be reversed. And it was.
No way of knowing what, exactly? that they did indeed stick to the law? Well, regardless of whether the bible was used, there's really no way to guarantee that the juries are sticking to the law.
Or did you mean there was no way of knowing whether he was guilty? Well, it isn't his innocence or guilt that's at question. He did it; he admitted to doing it. He was found guilty.

*snip*

I prefer the third option, scrap trial by jury, have judgements made by those qualified to do it. (This could be judges, it could be committees of educated and scrutinised peole such as academics or retired servicemen etc.)

There is this inconvient little thing here in the US known as the Constitution, the Sixth Amendment to which states:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Its pretty fundamental to our entire system of justice.

Christians are all evil people anyways.
Why should the US have to tolerate their parasitic existence? I for one would ban all heretical hypocrites, known more commonly as Christians.

Murder is far more acceptable than the blood-thirsty religion of Christianity. Rape on the other hand, is borderlining being just as evil.

I'm not against religion, all religions except christianity are ok.


Watch some christian say "Christians are good people!" Fucking lying life-thief!
Wow. Nice first post on NationStates. I'm going to be kind and suggest that you take a few moments to READ THE RULES OF CIVIL BEHAVIOR (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=288255) here on the Forums. You're new, and a couple more posts like that will make your tenure here very short.
All Religion Should Be Banned! It Only Causes Hatred and Death!
One horrid example is not a call for flamebait against everyone religioous. Get a grip, Mental lands. You're out of line.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

Man! I seemed to have missed that... what was the final verdict on jurors having to swear on bible? There never was a jewish or moslem jury member in an American court?

I'm just asking cos... I travel a lot... and that means sooner or later they catch me and ship me off to Guantanamo.

Can I just say: " I tell you the truth guys, I promise."?

Edit: no swearing on bible mandatory?

What hapens if a juror is a priest, is he or she not allowed to express their opinion, etc.

They aren't very effective members of a secular judicial system (Edit: When I wrote that I was working on the assumption that they would be giving a religion-based opinion. I guess I was getting ahead of myself)? I don't think they should be giving opinions based in religion. They can give opinions based in their morals which can be based in religion. That's unavoidable. The sentence the average jury decides to give will be affected by the current social climate. But that doesn't mean that they have to mention religion in any way. Surely a priest has a large enough vocabulary to give an opinion without mentioning such things.

The problem in this case was the explicit use of the Bible as an authority. Should people be concerned, however, about the pervasive use of religious texts in forming the opinions of those who will someday serve on a jury?

History has shown that humans tend to gravitate toward religious ideas. The striving to answer questions unanswerable with conventional logic is hardwired in our heads (Moreso then the use of conventional logic, unfortunately. It takes a lot of practice to be good at thinking logically. Much less then it takes to think like a fundamentalist.). As such, I don't see any reason to disallow people from being taught a religion from an early age, if that's what you're implying. But at the same time schools (we're assuming the vast majority of people go to a public school system) should make sure to pound the ideals of our government system into kids heads. I think there's a lot of teachers that do this on thier own, but I don't think there's a mandatory system in place (such as better or more numerous government classes) to do this. One issue is the number of hours in the day. This is why I'm in favor of schools switching to the trimester system of classes. Our local public high school is doing this next school year and I think it'll work out extremely well. It'd give plenty of time for a couple one semester government classes. But I digress, sort of.

If, religious principles are to be kept out of jury deliberations, then you have to have a juries that consist only of agnostics or atheists. Hardly representative of the people of the USA.

I guess I answered this already. There's no reason that Americans can't strike a balance between faith and the only truely fair religion that a government can follow: no religion at all (the religion of law and ethics, if you will). There'll inevitably be a minority that won't find it in themselves to try and keep religion out of thier decisions. There's not too much you can do about that without forcing a jury to give a list of reasons that they came to the conclusion that they did.

Remember, if a jury member hadn't been blabbing to reporters about why he came to his decision, no one would have known what happened in there and the defendant would be a dead man for sure.

No way of knowing what, exactly? that they did indeed stick to the law? Well, regardless of whether the bible was used, there's really no way to guarantee that the juries are sticking to the law.
Or did you mean there was no way of knowing whether he was guilty? Well, it isn't his innocence or guilt that's at question. He did it; he admitted to doing it. He was found guilty.

<sigh>

Why do you assume the Colorado Supreme Court got it wrong?

They had a tad more information than you do, months to review the case and decide, and a bit of training and experience.

Courts do error. All the time in fact. But why do people always assume a court has erred anytime the ruling might vaguely be disagreeable to their views?

(And, btw, the prosecution can, if it wishes still appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court to reconsider or appeal to the US Supreme Court. They may not bother, but rather just seek resentencing.)

"The problem with courts is sometimes they make decisions we don't like." -- The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

No way of knowing what, exactly? that they did indeed stick to the law? Well, regardless of whether the bible was used, there's really no way to guarantee that the juries are sticking to the law.
Or did you mean there was no way of knowing whether he was guilty? Well, it isn't his innocence or guilt that's at question. He did it; he admitted to doing it. He was found guilty.

There is no way of knowing how they would have ruled (death or prison) without having consulted the Bible. Thus the ruling is to be revised to err on the least drastic of measures, because the jury must vote unanimously for the death penalty.

So now that we're well into this thread, here's the point:
The man was an admitted rapist and murderer, the punishment for which is death. He was sentenced to death. That is the law. Why does it matter how it got to that point? His crime was lessened because someone was religious, NOT because there was a problem with the way the law was enforced.

Man! I seemed to have missed that... what was the final verdict on jurors having to swear on bible? There never was a jewish or moslem jury member in an American court?

I'm just asking cos... I travel a lot... and that means sooner or later they catch me and ship me off to Guantanamo.

Can I just say: " I tell you the truth guys, I promise."?

Edit: no swearing on bible mandatory?

It is well established law under the First Amendment that requiring an oath on the Bible is unconstitutional.

Most courts do not use the Bible at all. Those that do should (in fact, must) allow witnesses to swear to tell the truth without the Bible.

It is possible that some courtrooms are not following the law, but they are constitutionally forbidden from requiring religious oaths.

Fucking christian wackos. I, for one, am glad for the murderer. Sounds weird, doesn't it?

Using Bibles in courts... Fucking ridiculous.

I see. If I read the Bible at home, and come in and vote on the jury without saying anything, it's good.

If I take out the Bible and read it while I'm in the jury room, and vote, it's bad.

I see.

Make sure that the next time you go for jury duty, get your brainwipe done before you go in to vote (heavy duty electric shock therapy works wonders on eliminating your memory).

So now that we're well into this thread, here's the point:
The man was an admitted rapist and murderer, the punishment for which is death. He was sentenced to death. That is the law. Why does it matter how it got to that point? His crime was lessened because someone was religious, NOT because there was a problem with the way the law was enforced.

You seem to miss the point.

His crime hasn't been lessened. His sentence hasn't been lessened.

All that has happened is that his current death sentence has been vacated because of a procedural error. The jurors didn't follow the rules.

He can be resentenced to death.

This has next to nothing to do with religion.

It is well established law under the First Amendment that requiring an oath on the Bible is unconstitutional.

Most courts do not use the Bible at all. Those that do should (in fact, must) allow witnesses to swear to tell the truth without the Bible.

It is possible that some courtrooms are not following the law, but they are constitutionally forbidden from requiring religious oaths.
Thanks. That was pretty painless explanation.

(My example of course was flawed... I don't think they'd ask me to swear on bible when they finally catch me. But it's good to know the jurors don't need to either.) :D

Even a priest can agree to make decisions based upon the law.

Let's take a less obvious example. Suppose a woman was cheating on her husband with someone who beat her up and nearly killed her. She can sue this man and, if he did it, he should be punished under the law because what he did was illegal.

Now, let's say someone came in quoting the OT and demonstrated that a woman committing adultery was supposed to be stoned to death. As such, they might claim that she actually got less of a punishment than she deserved and they should just let the guy go. This is *obviously* in opposition to the law.

The problem is that we cannot allow our legal bodies to have the appearance of any such bias. While we know that many will make votes based on their own personal religious beliefs (although I would argue that they *shouldn't*), we must avoid any appearance of an obvious bias.

The Ceaser's wife syndrome. It is not necessary that ceaser's wife shall be free of blame, it is only necessary that she shall appear to be free of blame.

That someone can make decisions based upon the law is not in dispute. It is a truism. The dispute is over how to ensure that this happens in a jury situation. Your example of the adultery case is a god example as the secular and religious punishments are considerably different (at least for Christianity and the USA). That the religious point of view is obviously in contradiction with the secuylar law, does not ensure that it will not be used as an argument, a point of leverage within the delibertations by the Jury. To date, this discussion has focussed on religious beliefs being contrary to the secular law, but it is not just religion. There are similar problems with racism, sexism, and even what I call classism.
"She's poor black trash, she has no possibility of ever becoming anything better. Lock her up and throw away the key."
as opposed to
"He's any Ivy League kid, a varsity tackle. He just made a stupid mistake, haven't we all done that. Lets just ask for probation OK. He doesn't need more punishment than that."

Beliefs often get in the way of sentencing, and at times in the process of deciding guilt or innocence. (Go watch 12 angry men (1950s B&W, not the remake) for an excellent portrayal of this)

Who decides who is qualified and who gets to decide?
The currewnt system in the USA, there is a long pre-trial jury selection procedure. This selects jurors from randomly picked individuals. What could be done is to limit the pool of jurors to screened volunteers. The screening would look at their religious, social, economic, educational, and professional backgrounds. It must be possible to devise some kind of testing that would indicate if a person could and would perform as a juror working under the principles of the secular law or not. Then you simply go through the same jury selection procedure, just operating on a different pool of individuals.

You seem to miss the point.

His crime hasn't been lessened. His sentence hasn't been lessened.

All that has happened is that his current death sentence has been vacated because of a procedural error. The jurors didn't follow the rules.

He can be resentenced to death.

This has next to nothing to do with religion.
Did you read the article at all?
"In a 3-2 vote on Monday, justices ordered Robert Harlan to serve life without parole for kidnapping Rhonda Maloney and raping her at gunpoint for two hours before fatally shooting her."
He was being sentenced to death. Please explain how your warped world view doesn't find life without parole to be less than the death penalty?

By better screening, but you seemed to suggest that only atheists and agnostics are secular.

My apologies if I appeared to say that. I do not think it, nor would want it thought that I did.

I do not see how the screening would work, unless one goes to a full background screening which leads to professional jurors in the end. Too few people would pass the screening, and too much of their time would be occupied for them to follow any other profession. I have nothing against this, but it does eliminate the "jury of ones peers" principle.

The currewnt system in the USA, there is a long pre-trial jury selection procedure. This selects jurors from randomly picked individuals. What could be done is to limit the pool of jurors to screened volunteers. The screening would look at their religious, social, economic, educational, and professional backgrounds. It must be possible to devise some kind of testing that would indicate if a person could and would perform as a juror working under the principles of the secular law or not. Then you simply go through the same jury selection procedure, just operating on a different pool of individuals.

I don't think I'd have a problem with such a system. The only alternative I can think of, as I said in my last post, is to have a jury write out their reasons for their decision. With 12 randomly selected people in the room I think it would be highly unlikely that anything would be conveniently 'left out'.

Edit: Ok, maybe I would have a problem with that system. You already addressed how it would lead to a class of professional juries.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/29/bible.deliberations.ap/index.html

If people would only understand and respect the seperation of Church and State, things like this would never happen.

If people would only understand and respect the seperation of Church and State, things like this would never happen.

Exactly.

My apologies if I appeared to say that. I do not think it, nor would want it thought that I did.

I do not see how the screening would work, unless one goes to a full background screening which leads to professional jurors in the end. Too few people would pass the screening, and too much of their time would be occupied for them to follow any other profession. I have nothing against this, but it does eliminate the "jury of ones peers" principle.
That would be difficult and the people may be few and far between.

There is no way of knowing how they would have ruled (death or prison) without having consulted the Bible. Thus the ruling is to be revised to err on the least drastic of measures, because the jury must vote unanimously for the death penalty.

So what if one of the jurors had a "What would Jesus do" tattoo? Could the courts overthrow their decision on those grounds? What if a juror were wearing a t-shirt that said "John 3:16"? Or, a t-shirt that said "Sh*% happens"? Could they overthrow their decision because of that? Would that be considered bringing in outside evidence? I thought that law was to prevent jurors from having newspapers or radios that may carry biased messages. The bible was written a long time ago; it could hardly have a bias concerning this specific case.

Did you read the article at all?
"In a 3-2 vote on Monday, justices ordered Robert Harlan to serve life without parole for kidnapping Rhonda Maloney and raping her at gunpoint for two hours before fatally shooting her."
He was being sentenced to death. Please explain how your warped world view doesn't find life without parole to be less than the death penalty?

I did read the article.

I can see how it gave you the impression it did. But life without parole is merely the default when a death sentence is overturned in Colorado. I admit the story says nothing about it, but I am certain the criminal can be resentenced. (It may be the trial court that originally vacated the sentence -- the Colorado Supreme Court was merely upholding that decision -- has already resentenced the defendant. In which case, he did get a lower sentence, but only because that was the result of a hearing that did follow the rules.)

This is yet another reason why getting worked up over a reporter's account of a judicial decision is unwise.

Nothing warped about my world view, thank you very much. I agree life without parole is a lesser sentence than death. I am merely more familiar with the system than you appear to be.

And, while we are on the subject, how do you justify executing someone if the jurors failed to follow the jury instructions?

Or does rule of law only apply when it is convenient?

I'm implying that all religions are superstition. ;)


wow, that's great.

now they have to fight eachother over who gets to throw you in which version of hell.

it's like a religious war over who gets to punish you for eternity.

awesome.

I see. If I read the Bible at home, and come in and vote on the jury without saying anything, it's good.

If I take out the Bible and read it while I'm in the jury room, and vote, it's bad.

I see.

If you take out the Bible and read it in the jury room, you are influencing *other* votes by using your own personal religious beliefs, rather than the law, not just your own.

There is this inconvient little thing here in the US known as the Constitution, the Sixth Amendment to which states:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury

Its pretty fundamental to our entire system of justice.

a jury only needs to be impartial, not drawn from the general populace. If a jury were formed of lawyers and academics, they could remain impartial and give a speedy and public trial to the defendent.

a jury only needs to be impartial, not drawn from the general populace. If a jury were formed of lawyers and academics, they could remain impartial and give a speedy and public trial to the defendent.

Untrue.

As with every Constitutional provision, there is more meaning here than the literal words.

Without going into further detail, here are some relevant holdings.

''[T]he selection of a petit jury from a representative cross section of the community is an essential component of the Sixth Amendment.''
Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 528 (1975).

''The guarantees of jury trial in the Federal and State Constitutions reflect a profound judgment about the way in which law should be enforced and justice administered. A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the Government. Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority. The framers of the constitutions strove to create an independent judiciary but insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action. Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge. . . . [T]he jury trial provisions . . . reflect a fundamental decision about the exercise of official power--a reluctance to entrust plenary powers over the life and liberty of the citizen to one judge or to a group of judges. Fear of unchecked power . . . found expression in the criminal law in this insistence upon community participation in the determination of guilt or innocence.''
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391, U.S. 145, 155-56 (1968).

I did read the article.

I can see how it gave you the impression it did. But life without parole is merely the default when a death sentence is overturned in Colorado. I admit the story says nothing about it, but I am certain the criminal can be resentenced. (It may be the trial court that originally vacated the sentence -- the Colorado Supreme Court was merely upholding that decision -- has already resentenced the defendant. In which case, he did get a lower sentence, but only because that was the result of a hearing that did follow the rules.)

This is yet another reason why getting worked up over a reporter's account of a judicial decision is unwise.

Nothing warped about my world view, thank you very much. I agree life without parole is a lesser sentence than death. I am merely more familiar with the system than you appear to be.

And, while we are on the subject, how do you justify executing someone if the jurors failed to follow the jury instructions?

Or does rule of law only apply when it is convenient?
You can't be tried for the same crime twice. If there is a mistrial and you get off, you get off. You don't seem all that familiar with the system at all. If a judge told the jury not to eat ice cream on Sunday, and they deliver a conviction after eating ice cream, does it matter? If the action does not affect the outcome of the case, as in, if he would have been found guilty by ANY reasonable jury, ice-cream eating or not, then yes, the law only applies when it is convenient.

If you take out the Bible and read it in the jury room, you are influencing *other* votes by using your own personal religious beliefs, rather than the law, not just your own.
Any time I say anything I am attempting to influence you one way or the other. Would it matter if someone quoted the Bible without giving a verse?

You can't be tried for the same crime twice. If there is a mistrial and you get off, you get off. You don't seem all that familiar with the system at all. If a judge told the jury not to eat ice cream on Sunday, and they deliver a conviction after eating ice cream, does it matter? If the action does not affect the outcome of the case, as in, if he would have been found guilty by ANY reasonable jury, ice-cream eating or not, then yes, the law only applies when it is convenient.

His conviction was not overturned, only the sentencing was. There may be a system for re-sentencing.

Any time I say anything I am attempting to influence you one way or the other. Would it matter if someone quoted the Bible without giving a verse?

If someone did it flippantly because it was their thought-process, no. If someone plotted to sneak in Bible verses for the purposes of swaying the jury, yes.

As I pointed out before, if someone had said "An eye for an eye, you know" or something along those lines during deliberations, no one would care.

If someone did it flippantly because it was their thought-process, no. If someone plotted to sneak in Bible verses for the purposes of swaying the jury, yes.

As I pointed out before, if someone had said "An eye for an eye, you know" or something along those lines during deliberations, no one would care.
So it's okay to sway people if it's your natural inclination to sway people, but not if you have to look something up?

So what if one of the jurors had a "What would Jesus do" tattoo?

Such a person would probably never end up in a jury.

Could the courts overthrow their decision on those grounds?

If there was sufficient proof that there was undue religious tampering with the jury, then yes.

What if a juror were wearing a t-shirt that said "John 3:16"? Or, a t-shirt that said "Sh*% happens"? Could they overthrow their decision because of that?

Same two answers as above.

Would that be considered bringing in outside evidence? I thought that law was to prevent jurors from having newspapers or radios that may carry biased messages. The bible was written a long time ago; it could hardly have a bias concerning this specific case.

Religious bias stands in a league of its own. If there is sufficient cause to believe a juror was taking into consideration anything but the pertinent laws, then it is an unjust ruling that needs to be revised.

You can't be tried for the same crime twice. If there is a mistrial and you get off, you get off. You don't seem all that familiar with the system at all. If a judge told the jury not to eat ice cream on Sunday, and they deliver a conviction after eating ice cream, does it matter? If the action does not affect the outcome of the case, as in, if he would have been found guilty by ANY reasonable jury, ice-cream eating or not, then yes, the law only applies when it is convenient.

Look, I don't know further details about the Robert Harlan case. Perhaps you are right that he will now get no more than life without parole. I doubt that he either cannot or has not been resentenced, but it is possible.

But you are wrong about double jeopardy. This neutral site with caselaw (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/05.html#2) will explain it better than I. But here is one quote:

Generally, a defendant who is successful in having his conviction set aside on appeal may be tried again for the same offense, the assumption being made in the first case on the subject that, by appealing, a defendant has ''waived'' his objection to further prosecution by challenging the original conviction. United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662 (1896).

As to the last bit, how do you know that "ANY reasonable jury" would have sentenced Mr. Harlan to death?

The possibility that an error is harmless is, in fact, considered by the courts -- and was a significant issue in the Harlan case. The Colorado Supreme Court, with all the evidence before them, deemed the error not harmless. Do you have any basis for disagreeing?

Look, I don't know further details about the Robert Harlan case. Perhaps you are right that he will now get no more than life without parole. I doubt that he either cannot or has not been resentenced, but it is possible.

But you are wrong about double jeopardy. This neutral site with caselaw (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/05.html#2) will explain it better than I. But here is one quote:

Generally, a defendant who is successful in having his conviction set aside on appeal may be tried again for the same offense, the assumption being made in the first case on the subject that, by appealing, a defendant has ''waived'' his objection to further prosecution by challenging the original conviction. United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662 (1896).
He has to be tried in a higher level court. Above the court which the case is now currently in is the Supreme Court, and I highly doubt this case will make it that far.

As to the last bit, how do you know that "ANY reasonable jury" would have sentenced Mr. Harlan to death?

The possibility that an error is harmless is, in fact, considered by the courts -- and was a significant issue in the Harlan case. The Colorado Supreme Court, with all the evidence before them, deemed the error not harmless. Do you have any basis for disagreeing?
I was talking about the ice cream. I don't know what another jury would have done. But the fact that it was a 3-2 decision rather than a 5-0 decision should indicate there is doubt as to what harm the error caused.

He has to be tried in a higher level court. Above the court which the case is now currently in is the Supreme Court, and I highly doubt this case will make it that far.

No. You should read the site.

His case goes back to the original trial court. If he can be resentenced, it can happen there.

Again, I have admitted I may be in error about whether he can be resentenced. I think it likely but I cannot be certain. Why are you still arguing with me on this side point?

Religious bias stands in a league of its own. If there is sufficient cause to believe a juror was taking into consideration anything but the pertinent laws, then it is an unjust ruling that needs to be revised.

There wil always be sufficient cause to believe that any juror is taking something more than the pertinent laws into account. People have beliefs and ideals, whether religious or not, explicit or not. These will always affect any judgement of appropriate punishment or guilt that a juror arrives at. By your argument here, all jury decisions need to be revised.

if they are going to use the bible as a basis for deciding guilt and punishment, shouldn't they have demanded a trial by ordeal?

So it's okay to sway people if it's your natural inclination to sway people, but not if you have to look something up?

The entire point of jury deliberations is to discuss the issue. If a Bible verse is the first thing to pop into your head, then it is obviously part of your thought process. If you have to sneak materials into the room *specifically* to try and push your religion on the rest of the jury, you have broken the rules.

So it's okay to sway people if it's your natural inclination to sway people, but not if you have to look something up?

Jurors are supposed to decide the case based on the evidence presented in court.

Its a fundamental principle of jurisprudence.

Jurors cannot be prevented from bringing their natural talents or inclinations into the jury room, no would that necessarily be desirable. But jurors are not supposed to seek outside information or influences of any kind.

Whether you were a defendant or victim, would you rather have a juror paying attention to the evidence or his/her own little detective work?

(BTW, 12 Angry Men is one of the greatest movies of all time, but that trick with the second knife was a case of juror impropriety. ;) No harm, no foul, perhaps.)

What part of deciding the case based on the evidence presented in court don't you understand?

Its a fundamental principle of jurisprudence.
Bring him down gently Cat-Tribe.

Bring him down gently Cat-Tribe.

Good point. I get edgy when I'm frustrated. I'll edit.

You idiot. They brought a bible into the juror room. This is considered outside information, just like jurors can't bring in a newspaper or a TV or a porn mag.

You idiot. They brought a bible into the juror room. This is considered outside information, just like jurors can't bring in a newspaper or a TV or a porn mag.
You said the "i" word, I'm telling!

Good point. I get edgy when I'm frustrated. I'll edit.


But you're still oh so entertaining TCT!

You said the "i" word, I'm telling!

Crap, is that banned now?

Crap, is that banned now?
No. But setting a cat aflame and throwing it in the air, freezing it, and then three days later resurrect it is.

Religious bias stands in a league of its own. If there is sufficient cause to believe a juror was taking into consideration anything but the pertinent laws, then it is an unjust ruling that needs to be revised.

Well, that's rediculous. You can't prove how a person came to a decision. In the same way that a person can read someone's tshirt and not have it influence his decision, a person can bring a bible in and not be influenced by reading a verse of it.

(And just because a person with a "what would jesus do" tattoo probably wouldn't get on a jury, doesn't mean he can't. It still wouldn't warrant grounds to repeal a death scentence.)

Edit: To my knowledge, the law doesn't forbid all forms of literature during jury deliberation. If that is the case, then and only then do they have legitimate reasons to repeal the death scentence.

You idiot. They brought a bible into the juror room. This is considered outside information, just like jurors can't bring in a newspaper or a TV or a porn mag.
yeah, i don't get why people are bitching about this. it seems pretty clear what happened, and pretty clear why it was against the rules. i guess we are supposed to make special exceptions for religious materials...?

*snip*
Edit: To my knowledge, the law doesn't forbid all forms of literature during jury deliberation. If that is the case, then and only then do they have legitimate reasons to repeal the death scentence.

Well, it does. It forbids all outside influences and extraneous materials. Jury decisions are to be based solely on the evidence presented in court.

Now you've learned something. Better than usual day at the NS forums. :D

And you can now be happy about the court decision.

yeah, i don't get why people are bitching about this. it seems pretty clear what happened, and pretty clear why it was against the rules. i guess we are supposed to make special exceptions for religious materials...?
Only Christian ones... *shifty*

Only Christian ones... *shifty*
makes me wonder who would be raising a stink if the religious material had been Wiccan. odd, how "religious freedom" in America now seems to mean "right to read the Bible all the time, whether you want to or not."

This may sound funny coming from an evangelical preacher, but this country was not founded by Christians. At the same time, the ideals held by them were similar. I would support the morals of those founding fathers as being what they were intending for this country. However, trying to find "God's opinion" on what to do in a situation like this is no more valid than trying to find Allah's, Buddha's, or John flippin' Smith's.

Though I would even go so far as to say that nobody should swear on the Bible in such a court. If it is not a valid source in the courtroom, then why would the court recognize it as anything upon which to swear?

For the record, I am a somewhat conservative evangelical. This is not a new-age Christian trying to revamp anything. I am just recognizing the difference between the rules instituted by the forefathers, who were merely deists, and the rulings in the Old Testament, which differ greatly, as well as the contradiction of the court when using the Bible as something worthy to be sworn upon, yet not worthy enough to be opened and used in the same court.

I can't believe that 11:30 PM is the only time I can find to post. Ugh, I am going home, where it is a benevolent dictatorship, and the Bible is law. ;)

Just a couple of points of clairification.

ONE, people (Christians) are regularily excluded from juries in capital cases because of their religous beliefs. There are a great many Christians who believe that their religion forbids them to give the death penalty, and anyone who cannot give the death penalty for moral/religous reasons is excluded as a matter of law from serving in a capital case. There may be a state which allows Christians who does not believe in the death penalty to sit on a death qualified jury but the federal government and all the states I am aware of exclude them.

TWO, the jury in question at the time was NOT making a decision based solely on evidence of guilt or innocence. They were making a decision of whether or not the crimes were serious enough to warrent the death penalty. The guilt was already determined, it was the seriousness of the offense which under consideration.


I'm somewhat divided on this issue. As a matter of law, the Supreme Court's decision was correct - the law sets standards which jurours are supposed to use in determing if an offense is worthy of capital punishment and using any other standard is innappropriate, be it the bible or John Rawls. But the emphasis on the bible is wrong, this is not a question of seperation of church and state but instead a question of juries following the law. Here we get into the entire question of jury nulification and the powers and rights of juries, something Colorado has been a lghtning rod for. Since I support the concept of jury nullification I have to say I believe the Court's decision was just wrong even though it mets the standards of the law.

jurors can't bring in a newspaper or a TV or a porn mag.

ah, crap.

well, screw that, then. :p


tho seriously, what can a porn mag have to do with the case.

"holy crap, here's the defendant! she got a full page spread, 32-33. i say she looks pretty guilty in that one" :p

Look if I was up for trial on some pretty serious, i.e. life-threatening charges, I wouldn't want anyone on the jury consulting anything other than their own thoughts on the case - no Bibles, no Tarot cards, no copies of the I Ching, dousing rods or totem poles or personal Gurus. Just 12 people, chairs, tables, and any printed matter pertaining exclusively to the matter at hand - my life's fate.

Go look up bible quotations on your own time - not mine. You're free to be as Christian as you want, but where my life is concerned, stick to the facts, sirs or madams.

Think about it. Seriously. It's not supposed to be about you, it's supposed to be about the guy being tried. Stop trying to turn everything into some kind of ecumenical attack against you. Land sakes.

You idiot. They brought a bible into the juror room. This is considered outside information, just like jurors can't bring in a newspaper or a TV or a porn mag.This, by the way, is just wrong. As a matter of practice juries are frequently asked not to bring in newspapers or magazines into the jury room and are prohibted if they contain information about the case they are deliberating on, but there is no blanket prohibition against newspapers or magazines or TV. As long as the media in question makes no mention of the case at hand it is perfectly allowable in the jury room or sitting on the top of a jurour's head in the form of a paper hat. So you can bring your porn mags in and leaf through them in your spare time all you want, although reading them when you are supposed to be deliberating may result in problems. Outside information only refers to outside information about the case, and not to all information from outside sources.

the law sets standards which jurours are supposed to use in determing if an offense is worthy of capital punishment and using any other standard is innappropriate, be it the bible or John Rawls.

I know it was a serious post, and yopur comments are appreciated, but I could not help but laugh at the image of some of the twelve jurors carrying their not legally endorsed veils of ignorance. :D

I know it was a serious post, and yopur comments are appreciated, but I could not help but laugh at the image of some of the twelve jurors carrying their not legally endorsed veils of ignorance. :DDarn that is a good image, I just wish it had been deliberate. I was thinking of Two Concepts Of Rules which actually deals with criminal justice and not A Theory Of Justice which doesn't.

Darn that is a good image, I just wish it had been deliberate. I was thinking of Two Concepts Of Rules which actually deals with criminal justice and not A Theory Of Justice which doesn't.

The only Rawls I have read is A Theory of Justice. I disagree with it, so I think I had better hit the library for Two Concepts of Rules, to see if I disagree with that as well. (The problem is finding a library in Brazil that has it.)

The options are, it seems, to restrict jury service to non religious people, or to accept that religious tennets do make up part of the belief structure of the American people, and allow them. If you do the latter, what difference does it make if it is in written form, or by memory?

I prefer the third option, scrap trial by jury, have judgements made by those qualified to do it. (This could be judges, it could be committees of educated and scrutinised peole such as academics or retired servicemen etc.)
You do realize you can waive your right to trial by jury and just ask for the judge to hear the case right?

*Brings an RPG book in the jury room*
Look, he did 4d6 damage to her! Okay, he dies!

See why using the bible to sentence is stupid?

This is censorship if ever I saw it. By this logic, its basicly saying that you can only get your morals from non religious sources. Surely freedom of though and belief demands that you can get it from anywhere?

And on a side note, the "eye for eye" verses come from the old Testement and Jesus specificly rebukes them in the new.

Bush and the Republicans will kill us all with their dangerous theocracy!! Republicans are evil!!

Exactly. Though I find it funny that they force you to swear on a Bible before you testify.


You don't have to take that oath. You may ask to take an alternate, non-religious oath. They are required to let you take an alternate oath if you ask, though I admit it freaked out the little lady at the court. She was so confused she had to ask the judge what to do, but I got my alternate oath.

And this was in Texas, though it was in Travis county.

*Brings an RPG book in the jury room*
Look, he did 4d6 damage to her! Okay, he dies!

See why using the bible to sentence is stupid?

Poor example for the following reasons

1) An RPG is just that. A game. Not real. Religion cannot be said to be the same.

2) People are allowed to use whatever judgements they want when they are on jury duty. The point is not everyone may hold those values. If there is someone stupid enough to bring up the values of an RPG then hopefully the others will make their own minds

Bottom line, people should be allowed to get their morals and ideas from wherever they like and should be able to put them into practise. So if a Christian/Muslim/Sikh/Buddhist/Jew/Scientologist believes the death penalty in this case is wrong/right then he/she can vote against/for it. Doesnt matter where they get their ideas from

Poor example for the following reasons

1) An RPG is just that. A game. Not real. Religion cannot be said to be the same.


Sure it can.

You don't have to take that oath. You may ask to take an alternate, non-religious oath. They are required to let you take an alternate oath if you ask, though I admit it freaked out the little lady at the court. She was so confused she had to ask the judge what to do, but I got my alternate oath.

see, this i approve of. trial by oath taking is a valid biblical system of trial. it would still be better if they also used an ordeal or two to decide guilt. but this whole jury thing, not so good. not ordained by god, ya know.

Personally I believe that religion should be utterly, totally abolished. It divides societies, creates as sense of 'us and them' and that's not the worst of it. People (stupid people, for on average the devout have lower IQs, especially in Protestant societies) use religion as an excuse to do harm to one another. The best examples? The recent 'War' (Mess) in Iraq/ 9/11. What it also does is breed ignorance...I mean I've seen polls that show a substantial portion of American people believe in creationism? I mean...COME ON? Also, according to Gallup (the poll aforementioned) most American christians are Biblical Literalists. Although I am not the greatest fan of America as a country, I think the country has become a Theocracy. Not only because Children are more or less forced into religion by their parents -and- by schools (especially in the...*shudder* Bible Belt) and this is such hypocrisy when the country is meant to be about Liberty and Choice, but because the President is not just a half-wit but a religious one at that. He brings God into his speeches, into his policy...he acts with God in mind and it isn't for the good of the people. America will slump into a Judeo-Christian stone age while the rest of the world goes (as it is GOING) secular. Not only the Executive, but the legislature is packed with religious men and women because it seems that to succeed in American politics one must be of a religion. This is very depressing, because atheists usually have a far more selfless and objective view of what can be done for the people. I'm not going to say people don't have a right to be Christian, but I believe it's a perversion of the advancement of any civilisation that it should have such a huge sway over policy. That is why I believe America is a Theocracy. I don't believe Christians should be allowed to be Jurors unless they're judging a Christian. To me, living your life as a Christian/Muslim/whatever is no better than being a murderer...it's still a supremely ignorant thing to do. Anyway, yes, America, theocracy...people religious, government religious...and that's why I find it to be such a weird and unnerving place.

Personally I don't believe Christians should be allowed to be Jurors unless they're judging a Christian. To me, living your life as a Christian/Muslim/whatever is no better than being a murderer...it's still a supremely ignorant thing to do. Anyway, yes, America, theocracy...people religious, government religious...and that's why I find it to be such a weird and unnerving place.

Yeah, I want to be judged by a jury of my peers.
They should be liberal atheist feminist bipolar tree huggers.

BTW- you ever heard of paragraphs? That was a long ass post, and a bit hard on the eyes.

Personally I believe that religion should be utterly, totally abolished. It divides societies, creates as sense of 'us and them' and that's not the worst of it. People (stupid people, for on average the devout have lower IQs, especially in Protestant societies) use religion as an excuse to do harm to one another. The best examples? The recent 'War' (Mess) in Iraq/ 9/11. What it also does is breed ignorance...I mean I've seen polls that show a substantial portion of American people believe in creationism? I mean...COME ON? Also, according to Gallup (the poll aforementioned) most American christians are Biblical Literalists. Although I am not the greatest fan of America as a country, I think the country has become a Theocracy. Not only because Children are more or less forced into religion by their parents -and- by schools (especially in the...*shudder* Bible Belt) and this is such hypocrisy when the country is meant to be about Liberty and Choice, but because the President is not just a half-wit but a religious one at that. He brings God into his speeches, into his policy...he acts with God in mind and it isn't for the good of the people. America will slump into a Judeo-Christian stone age while the rest of the world goes (as it is GOING) secular. Not only the Executive, but the legislature is packed with religious men and women because it seems that to succeed in American politics one must be of a religion. This is very depressing, because atheists usually have a far more selfless and objective view of what can be done for the people. I'm not going to say people don't have a right to be Christian, but I believe it's a perversion of the advancement of any civilisation that it should have such a huge sway over policy. That is why I believe America is a Theocracy. I don't believe Christians should be allowed to be Jurors unless they're judging a Christian. To me, living your life as a Christian/Muslim/whatever is no better than being a murderer...it's still a supremely ignorant thing to do. Anyway, yes, America, theocracy...people religious, government religious...and that's why I find it to be such a weird and unnerving place.

You're a bad athiest person. Shame on you.

I'm new to this posting malarkey. I'm an atheist, doesn't make me a bad person...and I didn't mean it that literally, that one should be judged by people who are exactly the same. That would mean murderers were judged by murderers. I really meant that religious jurors? Bad idea. Trial by Jury is a great British Institution that has been spread all over the world like marmite, bless it, and it's being corrupted by religion. You don't ask evangelical christians to judge a murderer (they might think he's gay or something- TO HELL WITH HIM!!!) because they're bound to be far harsher than a level headed agnostic, liberal or not. And one can be conservative and non-religious, and liberal and religious...it's only in the USA where the word 'conservative' is so fundamentally associated with religion.

You're a bad athiest person. Shame on you.

You're funny. Tell me, did your parents have any children that lived?

To me, living your life as a Christian/Muslim/whatever is no better than being a murderer...it's still a supremely ignorant thing to do.

Ok why is it ignorent. Ignorent of what. Because there isn't evidence disproving God's existance so what exactly are people ignorent of?

There isn't proof that he exists either! Anyway, I don't feel God in my heart like Christians/What-not claim you can...I don't believe that someone else ultimately has control over my fate and I certainly don't believe that Christianity et al would exist if it weren't for propaganda in the Late Roman Empire...oh and did you know, that Romans actually wrote the Bible? It's true...sorry to upset any of you, but evidence is there.

Besides, I believe it's ignorant to blindly follow a faith without proof...sure if God existed I'd be standing in line outside the 'Gogue or whatever but NO, there's no proof he DOES exist. I

oh and did you know, that Romans actually wrote the Bible? It's true...sorry to upset any of you, but evidence is there.


Can you provide evidence?

Not off hand, no, but it's a highly regarded new theory that has sprung from the halls of Oxbridge.

It doesnt matter if the jurors referred to Grimms Fairy Tales for guidance. Or this forum. Jurors are supposed to go in without pre-concieved notions and make a decision based on facts presented in the court room. If its a capital crime and fits the requirements for capital punishment, the defendant gets that penalty if he was found to be guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. There is no consulting a Bible or any other reference material.

It doesnt matter if the jurors referred to Grimms Fairy Tales for guidance. Or this forum. Jurors are supposed to go in without pre-concieved notions and make a decision based on facts presented in the court room. If its a capital crime and fits the requirements for capital punishment, the defendant gets that penalty if he was found to be guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. There is no consulting a Bible or any other reference material.

Your mistake is that they are supposed to go in without preconcieved notions about the guilt/innocence of the person. This is about sentencing.

Poor example for the following reasons

1) An RPG is just that. A game. Not real. Religion cannot be said to be the same.



It CAN be said to be the same, as it IS. Myths, religion, are but literature gone awry.


2) People are allowed to use whatever judgements they want when they are on jury duty. The point is not everyone may hold those values. If there is someone stupid enough to bring up the values of an RPG then hopefully the others will make their own minds

Bottom line, people should be allowed to get their morals and ideas from wherever they like and should be able to put them into practise. So if a Christian/Muslim/Sikh/Buddhist/Jew/Scientologist believes the death penalty in this case is wrong/right then he/she can vote against/for it. Doesnt matter where they get their ideas from

If it doesn't matter, then ideas that come from RPGs should be as accepted as ideas that come from the OTHER myths (religion).

Not off hand, no, but it's a highly regarded new theory that has sprung from the halls of Oxbridge.

I actually do know a great deal about Biblical history so let me ask you this, if the Romans produced this document, why does it not talk about Roman gods or Roman mythologies but instead create a man who fits into all the Jewish prophicies so perfectly. In the Old Testement there are over 300 prophicies about Jesus's life, each one of them fufilled. Why would the Romans lie about that?

It CAN be said to be the same, as it IS. Myths, religion, are but literature gone awry.

No it cant. Unlike religion it is certian fact that RPG's are fiction. Religion is not certian fact that its wrong or right.

No it cant. Unlike religion it is certian fact that RPG's are fiction. Religion is not certian fact that its wrong or right.
I can be said. Doesn't mean it is.

With all the religion existing today, some of them has to be myth.

I actually do know a great deal about Biblical history so let me ask you this, if the Romans produced this document, why does it not talk about Roman gods or Roman mythologies but instead create a man who fits into all the Jewish prophicies so perfectly. In the Old Testement there are over 300 prophicies about Jesus's life, each one of them fufilled. Why would the Romans lie about that?
It doesn't mean they invented the story whole cloth. But the research this guy is talking about say that the documents were put to parchment around the year 300 AD. The romans may have decided to write it because many versions were going around, because they wanted to modify some things, or other reasons. But it does point to the evangiles being written later. In fact, IIRC, some estimates say that John was written around 500 AD.

Besides, by the end, the Roman empire WAS Christian.

I'd much rather see criminals go free than have them judged from a Biblical perspective. Or a Hindu perspective. Or a Bhuddhist perspective.

Christians/religious people who can judge from basis in law are more than welcome to be jurors. Those who cannot, should not be jurors.

I'm curious to know what the judge's role in all this was... because the jurors are are instructed by the judge.

Also... many, if not most, of our laws are based on the Bible... whether anti-christians like it or not...

While I am generally opposed to theocratic forms. I would agrue that the actions by the jury in deliberation were valid.

First of all. "The Bible was not used in the court room." The jury deliberates in private chambers. Not in the court room.

Secondly, the Sentancing phase is seperate from the trial phase. In sentancing deliberation, are we to say that the jury is unable to deliberate upon their personal moral views in relation to the law (in the case of the death penalty being possibly imposed). In this case we are trying the hands of a jury to legally perform its duty in the presence of sentancing the imposed in accordance with the law. (Irrespective of whether or not you are a judeochristian or like judeochristians) You are not on the jury, and therefore their own personal moral beliefs in relation to the law are applicable to their duty in imposing the sentancing options presented by the court (including the Death Penality).

As such, despite any of my personal convictions. I would argue that the Jury did indeed perform its lawful duties. And it's deliberation, even if relying upon personal religious morals (in conjunction with legally imposed sentancing guidlines) was valid. And the appelate decision was in error.

I would suppose the further appelate actions will overturn the lower court and re-affirm.

Also... many, if not most, of our laws are based on the Bible... whether anti-christians like it or not...
I find this statement highly improbable. Care to explain how you came to this conclusion?

When Canada becomes an official department of France, America will be an official theocracy.

I can be said. Doesn't mean it is.

With all the religion existing today, some of them has to be myth.

I meant it can be said with certianty that RPG's are fiction. The same thing cant be said about religion.

I meant it can be said with certianty that RPG's are fiction. The same thing cant be said about religion.
Some religion can be said with certainty that they're fiction. In fact, I can say with certainty that the majority of religion are fictions.

Oh, and Whispering Leg, your mouth is talking. You might want to look into that. You rampant racism might have been taken for an opinion at first, but the fact that you associate a country that is 80% English to France talks volume about your grasp of the world outside your borders.

I meant it can be said with certianty that RPG's are fiction. The same thing cant be said about religion.

If you define fiction as being anything that is not based on proven facts, then the same thing can be said. Your belief, and that of milions of others, does not produce proof. This is, however, a seperate discussion.

I'm curious to know what the judge's role in all this was... because the jurors are are instructed by the judge.

Also... many, if not most, of our laws are based on the Bible... whether anti-christians like it or not...

Wrong again. Hasn't that been discussed to death?

Some religion can be said with certainty that they're fiction. In fact, I can say with certainty that the majority of religion are fictions.

Oh, and Whispering Leg, your mouth is talking. You might want to look into that. You rampant racism might have been taken for an opinion at first, but the fact that you associate a country that is 80% English to France talks volume about your grasp of the world outside your borders.

And you obviously don't recognize a joke when you see one. I know that Canada is not majority French. That's why it would be unlikely to become a department of France.

I actually do know a great deal about Biblical history so let me ask you this, if the Romans produced this document, why does it not talk about Roman gods or Roman mythologies but instead create a man who fits into all the Jewish prophicies so perfectly. In the Old Testement there are over 300 prophicies about Jesus's life, each one of them fufilled. Why would the Romans lie about that?

They needed to preserve the Unity of the Empire later on. Ever heard of Constantine? Christianity was simply a tool to subjugate loads of people under Roman rule

Since I haven't really seen what the people you are talking said I can't comment much on that. However, at the time you said it was written down, the Christians were being persecuted, so they would have to hide it if they were writing it down. Even at that, we have Greek and in some cases Hebrew copies of scripture dating before this time. I would say its doubtful that Romans wrote this down, short of saying Paul was a Roman citizen and Luke could have been too. I could be wrong, but with the earlier manuscripts we have, that idea just seems unlikely. Also, if they had written most of it down surely they would have changed some stuff to fit in more with Roman ideas, unless the theory is that Roman Christians wrote it down. If you look at books like Philippians describe God in phrases that were also used to describe how the Roman army would protect Philippi and Paul talks about our real citizenship in Heaven, a direct attack on the Roman Empire. Again, I’m no scholar, but I just don’t see it.

Fucking christian wackos. I, for one, am glad for the murderer. Sounds weird, doesn't it?

Using Bibles in courts... Fucking ridiculous.

Oh, you are CLASSIC! You his admirer now? Gonna go do a copy cat?

Seriously, what would you do if this guy did this to your mother? Your sister? Your girlfriend/wife? Or just somebody you cared about? Oh, I'm glad the guy that killed my <insert loved one here> got off because he was being tried by a Christian. I feel so bad for him because there were Christians on the jury. I feel his pain. Oh woe and sorrow!

Just a bit of FACT, buddy. Until the Bible was removed from the public school and public places, crime was DOWN! Teenage pregnancy was all but unhead of! People had morrals! And the world was a much better place. And if you don't believe me, and you have the mental capacity to do a lil research, try looking up the statistics. The Bible has ALWAYS had the numbers on its side. It caused better lives, better people, and is a much more accurate description of how we came about, unlike Mr. Darwin. Course, I expect a flame reply instead of quoted facts. :) Peace!

PS For all those reading this, I'm a spitfull lil bastard and love egging idiots on. Their replies are always funny and I really need a good laugh right about now.

Oh, you are CLASSIC! You his admirer now? Gonna go do a copy cat?

Seriously, what would you do if this guy did this to your mother? Your sister? Your girlfriend/wife? Or just somebody you cared about? Oh, I'm glad the guy that killed my <insert loved one here> got off because he was being tried by a Christian. I feel so bad for him because there were Christians on the jury. I feel his pain. Oh woe and sorrow!

Just a bit of FACT, buddy. Until the Bible was removed from the public school and public places, crime was DOWN! Teenage pregnancy was all but unhead of! People had morrals! And the world was a much better place. And if you don't believe me, and you have the mental capacity to do a lil research, try looking up the statistics. The Bible has ALWAYS had the numbers on its side. It caused better lives, better people, and is a much more accurate description of how we came about, unlike Mr. Darwin. Course, I expect a flame reply instead of quoted facts. :) Peace!

PS For all those reading this, I'm a spitfull lil bastard and love egging idiots on. Their replies are always funny and I really need a good laugh right about now.

ROFLMAO

The Law IS a religion

Just a bit of FACT, buddy. Until the Bible was removed from the public school and public places, crime was DOWN!
*snip*
People had morrals!

DOWN in comparison to what that came before it? The use of the Talmud in schools, or maybe some lost text source for the European Pagan religions?

Where can I get a morral (sic)?

Ok why is it ignorent. Ignorent of what. Because there isn't evidence disproving God's existance so what exactly are people ignorent of?
But is there any evidence PROVING God's/Gods' existence? No. None whatsoever. Occams razor hun. The explanation that acquires the least assumptions is usually correct.

This is censorship if ever I saw it. By this logic, its basicly saying that you can only get your morals from non religious sources. Surely freedom of though and belief demands that you can get it from anywhere?

Your personal morals have nothing whatsoever to do with being a jury member. You are there to uphold the law and see that justice gets done by the law. Your personal subjective beliefs have nothing to do with it.

And on a side note, the "eye for eye" verses come from the old Testement and Jesus specificly rebukes them in the new.

So someone can bring their own personal religious views in and force them into what is supposed to be an unbiased jury so long as they agree with your interpretation of the texts?

Your personal morals have nothing whatsoever to do with being a jury member. You are there to uphold the law and see that justice gets done by the law. Your personal subjective beliefs have nothing to do with it.

How can you make any decision at all if your personal and subjective beliefs are to have nothing to do with it. As a juror you are required to form an opinion about the intent of the defendant. This will always be personal and subjective. To uphold the law, the juror has to be what you are saying they must not be.

Your judgement of the intent of others will always be based upon your own personal code of social conduct. You judge if some action was intentional on the basis of whether it would have been intentional if you had done it. This is a moral judgement. Your personal and subjective moral evaluations lie at the heart of the trial by jury system.

How can you make any decision at all if your personal and subjective beliefs are to have nothing to do with it. As a juror you are required to form an opinion about the intent of the defendant. This will always be personal and subjective. To uphold the law, the juror has to be what you are saying they must not be.

You are to determine if a law was broken, not if you agree or disagree with that law. It was personal *morals* which I said do not come into it - and they do not. I may think that adultery is a horrible thing, but it is not illegal - and is thus not cause to put someone in jail.

Your judgement of the intent of others will always be based upon your own personal code of social conduct. You judge if some action was intentional on the basis of whether it would have been intentional if you had done it. This is a moral judgement. Your personal and subjective moral evaluations lie at the heart of the trial by jury system.

This is the silliest thing I have ever heard. I can attempt to figure out whether or not someone intended an action without even thinking about doing it myself.