I'm not sure it's that big of a deal, Scaeagles. When I've served on juries, the Judge has read us instructions that go on forever and ever about what we can and can not consider during deliberation. Basically, it comes down to this: you're not supposed use information other than the law and the facts as they are presented in the court. If it comes out that outside information was brought into play, the judge can throw out the verdict. I'm sure that people bring their personal opinions into the jury room every day, and I'm also sure that this is understood by the attorneys when selecting the jury. I'll bet that this case has more to do with the fact that jurors looked up "the law" (biblical law, but law nonetheless) on their own. You're not even allowed to look up US law on your own.

Perhaps someone with some more legal background could chime in on this one.

I tend to agree. I guess I was just confused when zapppop was concerned about it when I thought the ruling would be something he would be supportive of.

Of course a person can rely on their own religious beliefs to make a decission, especially in the penalty phase. There is no way to stop that, nor should there be. However, the issue is they brought in outside source material. That's not allowed.

It doesn't appear, though, that that was the issue - from the OP quoted article:

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

They did not say that (and it could be that it just was not in the article). They said that these "authoritative passages" could have been an undo influence on at least one juror. Would it not still have the same influence if the verses were quoted? If the jurors had taken the time to memorize them and quote them?

I am concerned that those with a religious point of view are being told that their religious point of view makes all of their opinions invalid. From the quote in the article, I would suggest that is what is being said.

I don't think this would have been an issue if they hadn't brought them in with them.

Well, you could be right, GD, but if those passages are "authoritative" when being read, I would suppose that they are just as "authoritative" when being quoted.

Well, perhaps. But, honestly, I still think it's the right decission. The decission should be based on our laws, not bibilical law.

If only...:rolleyes:

If only...:rolleyes:

Would that be the same government that is pushing for faith-based initiatives, only allowing abstinence-only education, limiting stem-cell research, and appointing an attorney general that wouldn't so much as dance because of his religious beliefs?

Interesting take on things. :)