[$tinkle]

...if you're a convicted felon:

Colorado Court Bars Execution Because Jurors Consulted Bible

DENVER, March 28 - In a sharply divided ruling, Colorado's highest court on Monday upheld a lower court's decision throwing out the sentence of a man who was given the death penalty after jurors consulted the Bible in reaching a verdict. The Bible, the court said, constituted an improper outside influence and a reliance on what the court called a "higher authority."

"The judicial system works very hard to emphasize the rarified, solemn and sequestered nature of jury deliberations," the majority said in a 3-to-2 decision by a panel of the Colorado Supreme Court. "Jurors must deliberate in that atmosphere without the aid or distraction of extraneous texts."

nytimes

does this mean we can throw out the constitution, various laws, & oaths of office because those who decided their makeup consulted the bible?

maybe they should have consulted the qu'ran instead?

 

[N8 v2.0]

Perhaps today's criminals would rather be conviced on the basis of various SpongeBob episodes.

 

[freightGOD]

or not:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/28/teacher.honored.ap/index.html

 

[Skookum]

If it fell under Arnie's jurisdiction he'd create the "Running Man" clause, and we'd all get to see it on cable.

 

[LordOpie]

The Bible, the court said, constituted an improper outside influence and a reliance on what the court called a "higher authority."

Did they just legitimize the bible?

 

[$tinkle]

at the very least, you no longer need a note from epstien's mother to get out of jury duty, just tote the good book.

 

[Andyman_1970]

..........just tote the good book.

I wonder if I can get a "get out of jury duty for life" card if I tell them I teach the Bible...........

 

[MMike]

a note from epstien's mother QUOTE]


Excellent reference......

 

[LordOpie]

did he reference Welcome Back Kotter?

wow!

 

[$tinkle]

I wonder if I can get a "get out of jury duty for life" card if I tell them I teach the Bible...........

as long as your sword is sheathed, you should be ok.

akin to: "keep your faith in the closet", which as we know, isn't a very 'diverse' mindset.

 

[ummbikes]

I have read stuff about people getting dissmissed as potential jurors because they were concientous(sp?) objectors on the grounds of not wanting to "judge" a peer.

In this case, based on a brief reading of the NY Times article, this more about a poorly writen direction to the jurors.

"as Colorado law requires - sent the jury off to deliberate about the death penalty with an instruction to think beyond the narrow confines of the law."

That was likely the problem. Honestly, whats the beef? Do we want a fundmantalist christian legal system now?

 

[$tinkle]

Do we want a fundmantalist christian legal system now?

that curious question is at odds with this paragraph from the article:

The Bible is hardly monolithic about what constitutes justice. Some legal experts say the jurors might just as easily have found guidance that led them to vote to spare Mr. Harlan's life. Lawyers for Mr. Harlan also specifically urged the jurors to consider biblical wisdom, according to the Supreme Court's decision, with a request that they find mercy in their hearts "as God ultimately took mercy on Abraham."

which, i believe, heads off at the pass the expected accusation that any biblical consultation results in absolute zealotry. (recall that jesus is a liberal)

this is patently false, as any serious student of the bible will testify (pun very much intended)

finally, are we to forget harlan was convicted of a capital offense, which by definition carries the death penalty (in colorado)?

 

[Ciaran]

a note from epstien's mother QUOTE]


Excellent reference......

Yes... semi obscure, yet culturally relevant. Excellent!

On the jury duty note... I'll do it but I hate it... If I really want out I just use alot of racial slurs during the "interview" process.

 

[ummbikes]

that curious question is at odds with this paragraph from the article:which, i believe, heads off at the pass the expected accusation that any biblical consultation results in absolute zealotry. (recall that jesus is a liberal)

this is patently false, as any serious student of the bible will testify (pun very much intended)

finally, are we to forget harlan was convicted of a capital offense, which by definition carries the death penalty (in colorado)?

I don't think Jesus was liberal or conservative, He is who He is. Son of God all that. So lets take him out of he equation for now, I retract the "fundamentalist legal" comment. Can we hammer out HWJV (How would jesus vote) another day?

The issue here isn't about consulting the Bible, it the fact that any materials are consulted while the jury is deliberating.


The Colorado issue creates an interesting situation, equal protection issues, states rights -vs- federal sentencing guidlines. Capitol cases, well all cases, need to be run in a manner that will assure justice is served, while balancing liberty. So please try and see past that it was the Bible, it would have just as wrong if it were Sister Helen Prejean's book, Dead Man Walking or a book of Supreme court rulings on the death penalty.

I'm a firm believer that evidense and argument should be enough.

 

[$tinkle]

I don't think Jesus was liberal or conservative, He is who He is. Son of God all that. So lets take him out of he equation for now, I retract the "fundamentalist legal" comment. Can we hammer out HWJV (How would jesus vote) another day?

dictum, ergo dick (i post, therefore i troll)

I'm a firm believer that evidense and argument should be enough.

well slap my ass & call me shirley, i didn't know you could do both!

 

[ummbikes]

Stinkle my friend.

Okay, you are snarky and clever! 2 bonus points for you.

Ad Hominem rules the day.

So really though, should juries be allowed to refence materials not relevent to the case?

 

[$tinkle]

So really though, should juries be allowed to refence materials not relevent to the case?

what you say to be "not relevant to the case" some lawyer might successfully argue it's tangential, along the lines of an existing legal precedent or statute (the basis for which may have come from the bible, as i suggested in my opening salvo)

 

[ummbikes]

I see what you are trying to say, I still find it problematic for three reasons.

1. It flies in the face of what a jury trial has been. Jurors can be jailed for discussing issues not raised in court. Bringing the Bible/Case Law Books/Polemics that rail against the death penalty clearly involve bringing information that have not been raised in the trial.

2. The Holy Bible is not 100% clear on crime and punishment. Justice has ranged from stoning to forgivness as judged by God.

3. If jurors are allowed to reference outside material in Colorado, and not here in Washington then there is some grounds for a clever lawyer to get cases tossed on 14th ammendment violations.

 

[$tinkle]

1. It flies in the face of what a jury trial has been. Jurors can be jailed for discussing issues not raised in court. Bringing the Bible/Case Law Books/Polemics that rail against the death penalty clearly involve bringing information that have not been raised in the trial.

being jailed (after being warned) differs from this event, as they were not prohibited from consulting the bible (as far as i have read)

2. The Holy Bible is not 100% clear on crime and punishment. Justice has ranged from stoning to forgivness as judged by God.

i believe it is, however man may contort its meaning, wherein lies the rub; most notably: gothatesfags.com.

there are too many folks who love to play "bible poker" instead of truly pursuing their walk w/ god

3. If jurors are allowed to reference outside material in Colorado, and not here in Washington then there is some grounds for a clever lawyer to get cases tossed on 14th ammendment violations.

what troubles you more: jurors who consult a book that is (for them) a wellspring for moral guidance, or judges who would posit their judgment with consideration given to international law, which is outside our boundaries & juristiction?

 

[Andyman_1970]

Wow, for a thread with the word "Bible" in it this is doing absolutely nothing for me..................

 

[ummbikes]

what troubles you more: jurors who consult a book that is (for them) a wellspring for moral guidance, or judges who would posit their judgment with consideration given to international law, which is outside our boundaries & juristiction?

Okay, I'm discussing 200+ years of American jurisprudance. Jurors need to focus on the facts and evidence in a case. If they read a newspaper if told not to they can be fined and jailed for contempt of court. Do you understand where I'm going with this part of my argument?

As people, free citizens they have every right to read their holy writings, be it Torah, Holy Bible, Book of Moron, Quaran, or what ever. Just not in the jury room.

As far as your question goes, I have a question, is the judge hearing an international case, or a federal/state/local case? If US based, why would inernational law apply? As far as people consulting their "wellspring of moral guidance" it's fine on personal level but really shouldn't be part of the jury deliberation process.

 

[LordOpie]

As far as people consulting their "wellspring of moral guidance" it's fine on personal level but really shouldn't be part of the jury deliberation process.

too true and the reason why is that our laws are based on the morals our society agrees upon... not an individual.

If there's a problem with that, then that's why we have an appeals process and an opportunity for laws to evolve.

 

[$tinkle]

Okay, I'm discussing 200+ years of American jurisprudance. Jurors need to focus on the facts and evidence in a case. If they read a newspaper if told not to they can be fined and jailed for contempt of court. Do you understand where I'm going with this part of my argument?

you're trying to equate a daily rag with timeless wisdom?

As people, free citizens they have every right to read their holy writings, be it Torah, Holy Bible, Book of Moron, Quaran, or what ever. Just not in the jury room.

what if the defense attorney first suggested the jurors consult it? (yes, this is very much a setup)

As far as your question goes, I have a question, is the judge hearing an international case, or a federal/state/local case? If US based, why would inernational law apply?

excellent question; perhaps we should ask a true authority on this: justice kennedy.

click here & check out pages 21-25 & maybe that can answer your question. just a sample:

"Our determination that the death penalty is disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18 finds confirmation in the stark reality that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty. This reality does not become controlling, for the task of interpreting the EighthAmendment remains our responsibility. Yet at least from the time of the Court’s decision in Trop, the Court has referred to the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments.”

see any problem with this?

As far as people consulting their "wellspring of moral guidance" it's fine on personal level but really shouldn't be part of the jury deliberation process.

again, just wait; there's more to this story...i'll post it as soon as i can track it down

again, i remind you: harlan admitted to this capital crime, this jury was on the sentencing phase when this kerfuffle started

 

[ummbikes]

Interesting stuff Stinkle. I'll get back to it, but I actually have to work today, so it may be bit.