- #1
Loren Booda
- 3,125
- 4
Here in the US, a man got his death sentence commuted to life because the jury had conferred with the Bible. Is this no different than if they had shared an article in Playboy magazine on the death penalty?
A jury of pedophiles judging other pedophiles? A jury of all muslims for muslim criminals? Who would decide if someone is your peer or not? Would you get to decide your jury? Would the court's judge get to hand-pick the jury based on whom he thought were your peers?SOS2008 said:Perhaps to be tried by one's peers would mean the jury should reference what the person on trial believes in?
Well, again, America's quite a Christian nation, as is clearly evident to you. This is what happens in a real Democracy, the will of the peopole dictates the actions of the government...SOS2008 said:In relation to, and before this question was posed, I was wondering about swearing on the Bible in court and the swearing in of presidents etc. with regard to separation of church and state. For many people who do not believe in the Bible, or do not believe the Bible to be literal, what good is it to swear on this book? The confusion with ethics, morals, values, social mores, and religious beliefs is interesting.
That's unfortunate, because you live in a Democracy, not a society of ethics, logic and reason, but a society of popular sovereignty. In America, everyone's considered your peer as far as jury selection goes - hell, Karl Rove couldn't make an appointment on one of those CNN shows today cause HE had jury duty. Talk about egalitarian...SOS2008 said:I would prefer a jury with ethics, logic, and reasoning over interpretation of the Bible if I were on trial.
Apparently you haven't followed recent trials (such as Michael Jackson's) and the process of jury selection.wasteofo2 said:In America, everyone's considered your peer as far as jury selection goes.
You're right, I haven't followed the Michael Jackson trial, or any celebrity trial for that matter, have they picked people with abusive fathers whom have had immense plastic surgery to be Michael Jackson's jurers?SOS2008 said:Apparently you haven't followed recent trials (such as Michael Jackson's) and the process of jury selection.
Using the Bible is customary and is the choice of the person being sworn in. If it has more meaning to a person, they can choose to be sworn in on a copy of Moby Dick.SOS2008 said:In relation to, and before this question was posed, I was wondering about swearing on the Bible in court and the swearing in of presidents etc. with regard to separation of church and state. For many people who do not believe in the Bible, or do not believe the Bible to be literal, what good is it to swear on this book? The confusion with ethics, morals, values, social mores, and religious beliefs is interesting.
SOS2008 said:Perhaps to be tried by one's peers would mean the jury should reference what the person on trial believes in?
In relation to, and before this question was posed, I was wondering about swearing on the Bible in court and the swearing in of presidents etc. with regard to separation of church and state. For many people who do not believe in the Bible, or do not believe the Bible to be literal, what good is it to swear on this book? The confusion with ethics, morals, values, social mores, and religious beliefs is interesting.
I would prefer a jury with ethics, logic, and reasoning over interpretation of the Bible if I were on trial.
Actually, basing their decision on an article in Playboy (a relevant article) would be disallowed as well, but for a different reason: bias. That's why juries are sequestered.Loren Booda said:Here in the US, a man got his death sentence commuted to life because the jury had conferred with the Bible. Is this no different than if they had shared an article in Playboy magazine on the death penalty?
Good-un :rofl: I don't follow legal issues because of celebrities, and only pay just enough attention to learn interesting things like:wasteofo2 said:You're right, I haven't followed the Michael Jackson trial, or any celebrity trial for that matter, have they picked people with abusive fathers whom have had immense plastic surgery to be Michael Jackson's jurers?
I heard this somewhere or another, but never knew if it was true--interesting.russ_watters said:Using the Bible is customary and is the choice of the person being sworn in. If it has more meaning to a person, they can choose to be sworn in on a copy of Moby Dick.
I'd like a few more details...Starting with who got his death sentence commute to life?Loren Booda said:Here in the US, a man got his death sentence commuted to life because the jury had conferred with the Bible. Is this no different than if they had shared an article in Playboy magazine on the death penalty?
Loren Booda said:Here in the US, a man got his death sentence commuted to life because the jury had conferred with the Bible. Is this no different than if they had shared an article in Playboy magazine on the death penalty?
SOS2008 said:In relation to, and before this question was posed, I was wondering about swearing on the Bible in court and the swearing in of presidents etc. with regard to separation of church and state. For many people who do not believe in the Bible, or do not believe the Bible to be literal, what good is it to swear on this book? The confusion with ethics, morals, values, social mores, and religious beliefs is interesting.
TheStatutoryApe said:I'm pretty much with wasteofo2 on this. It's just the way it goes.
And I don't quite see what's wrong with them taking a look at the bible either. These religious individuals are set to make a life or death decision and wish spiritual/moral guidance in making that decision. Where's the problem?
The other one I don't understand is how the ten comandments being displayed in a courtroom is a violation of church and state. If the judge were to ask you to say hail marys over it or kneel before it then I can see, but it just being there?
fifiki said:Juries are ONLY to consider the evidence admitted at trial and the law as given in the jury instructions. Having a bible could be very prejudicial. Also it probably wasn't properly received into evidence. The court must first give jury instructions, which very likely wasn't given with respect to the bible. The jury must accept the court's legal definitions and receive clarifications only from the court and not from outside sources. The Bible was extraneous information and so it was improper for them to have used it. This is especially the case here when who knows without the bible he might not have received the death penalty. Futher this could be constitutionally improper since they might have been basing their death sentence on something other than evidence brought into court. It may have improperly influenced the jurors. That's more than enough to declare that conferring with a Bible by the jury is improper.
As to the Ten Commandments--establishment clause.
It depends a little on the context. The most obvious case is this: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/ten.commandments/TheStatutoryApe said:The other one I don't understand is how the ten comandments being displayed in a courtroom is a violation of church and state. If the judge were to ask you to say hail marys over it or kneel before it then I can see, but it just being there?
That's pretty funny, since I actually don't agree with anything you said there.TheStatutoryApe said:I'm pretty much with wasteofo2 on this. It's just the way it goes.
And I don't quite see what's wrong with them taking a look at the bible either. These religious individuals are set to make a life or death decision and wish spiritual/moral guidance in making that decision. Where's the problem?
The other one I don't understand is how the ten comandments being displayed in a courtroom is a violation of church and state.
Moonbear said:When I first heard this, that was my interpretation of the reasons as well. It shouldn't matter what they conferred, if it was any source outside of the evidence presented as part of the trial, it would have been inappropriate to use it to guide their decision.
However, while in this case the Bible was physically brought in, how would it be handled had a group of the jurors had passages committed to memory and considered that in their deliberations without the book itself present?
I also am left wondering (although it is only pondering not directly addressing the legalities of the case in the OP), how would it have been handled if instead of using Bible passages to decide on the death penalty, they had used the Bible to lessen the penalty to a life sentence?
First... I believe that it was said they changed from a death penalty to life instead due to their confering with the bible, unless I am mistaken or the author of this thread is mistaken.fifiki said:Juries are ONLY to consider the evidence admitted at trial and the law as given in the jury instructions. Having a bible could be very prejudicial. Also it probably wasn't properly received into evidence. The court must first give jury instructions, which very likely wasn't given with respect to the bible. The jury must accept the court's legal definitions and receive clarifications only from the court and not from outside sources. The Bible was extraneous information and so it was improper for them to have used it. This is especially the case here when who knows without the bible he might not have received the death penalty. Futher this could be constitutionally improper since they might have been basing their death sentence on something other than evidence brought into court. It may have improperly influenced the jurors. That's more than enough to declare that conferring with a Bible by the jury is improper.
I didn't say that it was great actually. I said I agree that it's just the way it goes. Which I believe is more or less what you said. I then added more of my opinion and said nothing of using the bible to make court decisions but rather that I don't see what's wrong with a person confering for moral and ethical support when deciding whether or not to put a man to death.wasteofo2 said:That's pretty funny, since I actually don't agree with anything you said there.
Yes this is the case I was thinking of. I was unaware of his misconduct in running the courtroom though. At the time I had not agreed that it was a violation of the establishment clause but I did agree that he should be terminated for his failure to cooperate with a court order stating that the monument was to be removed.russ said:Its ironic to me that he lost his job for the symbol of judicial misconduct and not for his actual misconduct (though his actual misconduct was also cited). But even without the added misconduct, putting the Ten Commandments in the rotunda was a violation itself.
TheStatutoryApe said:First... I believe that it was said they changed from a death penalty to life instead due to their confering with the bible, unless I am mistaken or the author of this thread is mistaken.
Secondly... I don't really see how reading something that has nothing to do with the trial in and of itself should be considered to "taint" their decision in some fashion. I don't see what it has to do with interpretation of US and state law either.
Moonbear also has a good point. All of those people brought their religious beliefs in through those doors with them and it didn't really matter if they had a bible because they could still just as easily be making their decisions based on their own interpretation of the bible from memory.
It may be against the letter of the law, but I still don't really see the harm unless these people are a bunch of wackos that are solely judging based off of the bible and paying no attention to the law and case itself. It's a pretty hot issue whether or not the death penalty is an ethical practice and I don't think I can look down upon a person for feeling they need some moral or ethical guidance in making such a dicision.
TheStatutoryApe said:It may be against the letter of the law, but I still don't really see the harm unless these people are a bunch of wackos that are solely judging based off of the bible and paying no attention to the law and case itself.
Exactly. Due to the screening process it is far less likely that such a person would make it through into the jury. Aswell if such a person were to somehow make it through I'd expect they would not be received well by the other jurors and likely be removed from the jury were the person to harangue them with bible verse.fifiki said:How can you know whether someone bringing a bible into jury deliberations won't quote passage after passage and totally ignore the law entirely? Like I said before, that's why we have voir dire.
More than that jurors have the right to make decisions based on their personal beliefs and conscience. It's one of the main points of the trial by jury. But why does "extraneous text" pose a problem? Simply for the fact that it is a written document?fifiki said:However, that doesn't mean personal beliefs should not be considered; no one said that a person can't bring their beliefs to bear because that would be impossible, but the difference is bringing in extraneous text.
From what I understand of jury nullification, no they are not.Moonbear said:Well, the judge and jury are supposed to be bound by the letter of the law.
TheStatutoryApe said:Exactly. Due to the screening process it is far less likely that such a person would make it through into the jury. Aswell if such a person were to somehow make it through I'd expect they would not be received well by the other jurors and likely be removed from the jury were the person to harangue them with bible verse.
More than that jurors have the right to make decisions based on their personal beliefs and conscience. It's one of the main points of the trial by jury. But why does "extraneous text" pose a problem? Simply for the fact that it is a written document?
Since we are going on hypotheticals here what if a priest was called to jury duty and his natural instinct kicks in while he's in deliberation and he begins to relate everything to verse and his religion? Is this then a violation of the separation of church and state? Should he be removed from the jury because he is siting bible verse in deliberation? Is he somehow now less than an average citizen and unable to participate in a jury? Or does this only apply to the written word?
At any rate... my real question here is mainly in regards to what latitude if any should be given to jurors who feel they need ethical or moral support for a decision regarding the death sentance? Or do you feel that they should not be allowed to participate in the jury if they would feel they need support in making such a decision?
Jury nullification is no so simple a question, but it does no apply to this case. The misconduct of the jury was not in overturning the law on the crime in question, but rather one of procedure. Incompetence vs misconduct. Either way, its a flaw in our legal system, and one that is very tough to deal with.TheStatutoryApe said:From what I understand of jury nullification, no they are not.
"Jury conferring with the Bible" refers to the practice of jurors consulting religious texts, specifically the Bible, during deliberations in a court case.
The legality of jurors consulting the Bible during deliberations varies by jurisdiction. In some places, jurors are allowed to bring religious texts into the jury room, but they are not allowed to use them to reach a verdict. In other places, consulting the Bible during deliberations is not allowed at all. It is important for jurors to follow the instructions given by the judge in their specific case.
Jurors may want to consult the Bible during deliberations because it is a source of guidance and moral values for many people. Some jurors may believe that the principles and teachings found in the Bible can help them come to a just and fair verdict in a criminal or civil case.
It is possible that consulting the Bible during deliberations could affect the outcome of a trial. If a juror's decision is based on religious beliefs rather than the evidence presented in the case, it could potentially lead to a biased verdict. This is why it is important for jurors to base their decisions on the evidence and instructions given by the judge.
Yes, there are potential issues with jurors consulting the Bible during deliberations. It could lead to accusations of bias or unfairness if one side feels that the jurors' decision was influenced by religious beliefs rather than the evidence presented in the case. It could also raise concerns about the separation of church and state in the legal system.