Church & State separate ? Not in Colorado

Isaac · 03-28-2005, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Death Penalty Tossed Over Bible Verses
Mon Mar 28, 6:08 PM ET Top Stories - AP

DENVER - The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday threw out the death penalty in a rape-and-murder case because jurors had studied Bible verses such as "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" during deliberations.

On a 3-2 vote, justices ordered Robert Harlan to serve life in prison without parole for kidnapping 25-year-old cocktail waitress Rhonda Maloney in 1994 and raping her at gunpoint for two hours.

The jurors in Harlan's 1995 trial sentenced him to die, but defense lawyers discovered five of them had looked up Bible verses, copied them down and talked about them while deliberating a sentence behind closed doors.

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."

Assistant District Attorney Michael Goodbee said prosecutors were reviewing the ruling and could ask the state Supreme Court to reconsider or could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

During oral arguments before the Supreme Court last month, defense attorney Kathleen Lord said the jurors had gone outside the law. "They went to the Bible to find out God's position on capital punishment," she said.

Prosecutors had argued that jurors should be allowed to refer to the Bible or other religious texts during deliberations.

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

scaeagles · 03-29-2005, 07:09 AM

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.

Motorboat Cruiser · 03-29-2005, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

scaeagles · 03-29-2005, 07:53 AM

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?

Motorboat Cruiser · 03-29-2005, 07:55 AM

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.

€uroMeinke · 03-29-2005, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Should any juror with strong personal convictions be eliminated from the jury pool?

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.

Motorboat Cruiser · 03-29-2005, 08:29 AM

Good point, €uroMeinke.

scaeagles · 03-29-2005, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

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.

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.

Morrigoon · 03-29-2005, 08:56 AM

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.

scaeagles · 03-29-2005, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

Sorry scaeagles, you are too quick for me.

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

03-29-2005, 07:09 AM	#2
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	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.
	Submit to Quotes

03-29-2005, 07:53 AM	#4
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	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?
	Submit to Quotes

03-29-2005, 07:55 AM	#5
Motorboat Cruiser Cruiser of Motorboats Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: So Cal Posts: 3,665	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.
	Submit to Quotes

03-29-2005, 08:29 AM	#7
Motorboat Cruiser Cruiser of Motorboats Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: So Cal Posts: 3,665	Good point, €uroMeinke.
	Submit to Quotes

03-29-2005, 08:56 AM	#9
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	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. __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes