Church & State separate ? Not in Colorado
 

I'm glad that he's not dying but something troubles me about this.

I'm not sure why this bothers you - a judge threw out the death penalty because religion was used in determining his fate. I would think you would applaud that.

I, however, am disturbed by it. I could be wrong, but I don't think it is within the purview of a judge to look at the reason (or one of the reasons) that a jury came to their verdict. What he has done is put himself in the deliberation room at that point, and i think that is wrong. That is not his job.

I agree that the Supreme Court made the right decision in this case. All jurors are basically instructed that the only thing that should come into play in the decision-making process is the letter of the law. Not emotion, not religion, not a Ouji board. They are to simply look at the facts of the case and look at what the law says and make the decisions based solely on that information. Their job is not to look to the bible to aid in their decision. If that is what they did, there really is no choice but to step in. They aren't doing their job correctly. Besides, this wasn't done by the trial judge and he didn't put himself in the deliberation room. It went to the Supreme Court where a 3 judge panel independently made the decision.

I agree, MBC, when it comes to guilt or innocense. However, giving the death penalty is a matter of opinion, is it not? Whether this defendant deserves the "ultimate" penalty? There have been juries in the past where one person says that they have personal beliefs that forbid them from ever giving the death penalty. Should any juror with strong personal convictions be eliminated from the jury pool?

Sorry scaeagles, you are too quick for me. I edited my original comments. :) I don't know if that changes your response or not.

I think there is a difference between someone having personal convictions, or bringing a book in to influence others. The book isn't allowed to be a part of the process.

I think this happens all the time. I know I've been "thanked and excused" on cases where I stated I didn't support the death penalty.

Good point, €uroMeinke.

Ah, but that is before any part of the trial starts. Once you're in, you're in, and I would suggest that not doing everything possible to sway other jurors to your point of view completely does harm to the system overall. Are not the jurors supposed to deliberate? If it were quoted would that make a difference? So the opinions of these people do not matter because they had to refer to a document instead of knowing various Biblical quotes.

Seems to me that you're bringing in jurors to use their judgement. Included in their judgement process are all their modes of thinking, all the influences in their lives up to that point, INCLUDING their religion. Now a judge is telling them that they're wrong based on their religion.

IMHO, Atheism is becoming dogmatic in and of itself, as its own "religion". And the government is starting to endorse it to the exclusion of others.

That's what you said when I earned my toaster. ;)