Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: hawk220 on May 24, 2003, 08:55:13 AM
-
wow! if any news story was made for the different attitudes on this board, this is it!
Death sentence tossed out over Bible
Friday, May 23, 2003 Posted: 4:33 PM EDT (2033 GMT)
BRIGHTON, Colorado (AP) -- A judge threw out a convicted killer's death sentence Friday, saying the jury improperly relied on the Bible to reach its decision.
Judge John Vigil ordered a new sentencing hearing for Robert Harlan, who was convicted in 1995 of kidnapping, raping and murdering Rhonda Maloney, 25. He also shot a passer-by who tried to help, leaving her paralyzed.
"If any case merits the death penalty, there cannot be serious debate about this case being that case," Vigil wrote. "The death penalty, however, must be imposed in a constitutional manner ... Jury resort to biblical code has no place in a constitutional death penalty proceeding."
Defense attorneys had argued the use of religious works during jury deliberations is improper because the works are not Colorado law. Prosecutors said the use of biblical passages could not have influenced the verdict.
Vigil said the sequestered jury read and discussed biblical passages on punishment in the deliberation room "for the purpose of guiding and directing certain jurors to a particular verdict."
"The jurors' reliance on the specific biblical passages cannot be considered benign," he wrote.
Vigil referred to juror Lana Eaton-Ochoa, who read and wrote down the citation to Romans 13:1, which says "let every soul be subject to the governing authorities for there is no authority except from God."
"This and other passages the jurors considered do more than simply encourage jurors to follow the instructions of the court. The passages mandate that death be the penalty for murder," he said.
Eaton-Ochoa testified that she reads the Bible for comfort and wisdom.
The judge criticized court officials for failing to make sure jurors were not exposed to outside influences. "The jury supervision performed in this case was extremely negligent and appallingly lax," he wrote.
-
Just when you think you've heard it all.
-
well when you dont go by the law a case will be thrown out. the judge had to uphold the law of the land.
-
Since when is it against the law to consider your moral convictions in determining whether to execute someone?
-
It's a step away from insanity.
Law is law, faith is just that, faith.
Faith has killed millions. Innocent. Think about it.
-
Surely you guys aren't trying to twist this into blaming religion for this guy's rape and murder of a 25 year old woman and subsequent shooting resulting in paralyzation of a woman trying to help.
Please tell me you haven't become that twisted in pursuit of your political agenda.
-
i dont think religion had much to do with this guy doing his deeds, tho religion has killed more people than this guy has..
I also would certianly not refer to 'Winnie the Pooh' or 'Mother Goose' for legal advice, which have the same legal authority as the bible.
-
Originally posted by hawk220
i dont think religion had much to do with this guy doing his deeds, tho religion has killed more people than this guy has..
I also would certianly not refer to 'Winnie the Pooh' or 'Mother Goose' for legal advice, which have the same legal authority as the bible.
Jurors were never intended to be emotionless automotons. It is understood they will judge based on their life experiences and knowledge. It's incorrect and even foolish to believe that a juror will not vote his conscience however that conscience has been influenced by his or her personal beliefs.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Jurors were never intended to be emotionless automotons. It is understood they will judge based on their life experiences and knowledge. It's incorrect and even foolish to believe that a juror will not vote his conscience however that conscience has been influenced by his or her personal beliefs.
They are not suppose to be automatons.
But one of the Juror influenced some other Juror's decision with the bible. You have to ask yourself if that judment would have been the same without that influence.
Thats why the judge did what he did I think. He wasnt sure if people could not claim that the judgment was not valid.
He did the only thing he could do.
You dont want people to start thinking the bible is judging your criminals instead of the law. Dont forget that news media blow thing out of proportion more time then not.
Just my opinion of course.
-
Like Imp said....if any juror who changed their mind did so believing that they were following the word of the bible as the law of our land, then it was improper. That aside, once convicted there shouldn't have been a sentencing. This sh*thead should have been led out back for a quick bullet to the head, followed by a trip to Pittsburg to be turned into some useful oil, minerals and water!
SOB
-
Agreed, Imp.
-
Originally posted by hawk220
i dont think religion had much to do with this guy doing his deeds, tho religion has killed more people than this guy has..
I also would certianly not refer to 'Winnie the Pooh' or 'Mother Goose' for legal advice, which have the same legal authority as the bible.
Biblical law .. the Ten Commandments in particular ... is the foundation and basis for contemporary law in the western world.
Justice relies on Law .... what does Law rely on? Certainly not nursery rhymes. But the moral code involving the foundation of law and justice is more intertwined with Biblical law than you are apparently aware of.
And religion(not to be confused with faith) is no more responsible for the wholesale slaughter of mankind than the true motivation behind politics overall .... greed. Though I must admit, the apparent theory (of some) that the abolition of religion on the whole would result in the peaceful coexistence of all mankind is somewhat entertaining when taken in a less than serious light. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Biblical law .. the Ten Commandments in particular ... is the foundation and basis for contemporary law in the western world.
Wrong, laws against rape, murder, theft and other antisocial behavior existed long before the bible was invented or heard of .
-
Bugger the Bible.
Oh! From a preacher's son... :eek:
-
Originally posted by Suave
Wrong, laws against rape, murder, theft and other antisocial behavior existed long before the bible was invented or heard of .
As much as it may pain you to acknowledge such ... there were refinements in legal systems between the code of Hammurabi and now.The Christian Bible is the chief documented source that the Western world relied on for the foundation of most of their moral and legal codes. You may take solace in the fact that Jewish law was more of a precursor and that even laws based on Christian ideals are loosely enforced (if enforced at all) now. But yes, Virginia .... there's a relationship between the Bible and modern law.
Thank you. :D
-
Whether Christianity existed or not, we would still have laws against murder and rape and the like.
SOB
-
But it does exist and it has had an influence ... so worrying about it having an influence on the decision process of a juror or two is pointless. As is worrying about jurors using their own hidden prejudices (which the Bible condemns). And using "unfair Christian prejudice" as a basis for a mistrial would have seemed silly not all that long ago.
Nice to see so much good came from it, though. :rolleyes: ;)
-
"This and other passages the jurors considered do more than simply encourage jurors to follow the instructions of the court. The passages mandate that death be the penalty for murder,"
No, it is not pointless. A passage from the bible is not our law, and having a juror basing his/her decision on it because they think it is our law is a problem.
SOB
-
When you said western world I was thinking more of the mayans, vikings greeks and romans . All of which had morality and laws before they had ever heard of the bible. The same could be said of the eastern world .
-
Originally posted by SOB
"This and other passages the jurors considered do more than simply encourage jurors to follow the instructions of the court. The passages mandate that death be the penalty for murder,"
No, it is not pointless. A passage from the bible is not our law, and having a juror basing his/her decision on it because they think it is our law is a problem.
SOB
Yes .. it's pointless. Jurors arrive at their decisions via reasoning that can include personal morals and beliefs ... as well as evidence and the the law. These personal morals and beliefs can be Christian or non-Christian. A Christian juror can influence other jurors (or not) using his moral belief based on anything he wants. Lawyers remind jurors on a regular basis on what their case is based on and it's legal validity. They can't, however, dictate to a jury what the verdict or recommended sentence should be. They can only present their case. Nor can a Judge dictate to a jury what their verdict, recommendation of sentence or basis for such should be.
The time for a lawyer to try to make sure that there are no Christians on the jury is during jury selection. And even then he's hard pressed to reveal that as his basis for exclusion.
So if you think it's a major problem for jurors who deliberated this case to arrive at the conclusion that the defendent deserved the death penalty based on their moral and religious beliefs .. let me assure you that there's much worse to worry about. ;)