Posted on 03/28/2005 12:36:05 PM PST by Sola Veritas
Condemned man gets life in prison for killing waitress Updated: 2:47 p.m. ET March 28, 2005 DENVER - The Colorado Supreme Court threw out the death sentence Monday of a man convicted of raping and killing a cocktail waitress because jurors consulted the Bible during deliberations. The court said Bible passages, including the verse that commands “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” could lead jurors to vote for death. The justices ordered Robert Harlan to serve life in prison without parole for the 1994 slaying of Rhonda Maloney. Harlan’s attorneys challenged the sentence after discovering five jurors had looked up Bible verses, copied some of them down and then talked about them behind closed doors. Prosecutors said jurors should be allowed to refer to the Bible or other religious texts during deliberations.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
England, France, and Rome.
From whom was it derived?
The English.
Enough with the persecution complex. The rules don't exclude the Bible. They exclude all outside evidence.
More proof that judges have declared themselves GOD. And are responsible to NO ONE.
There is a word for religious law which is clumsily stretched to cover the gamut of modern circumstances - sharia.
No kidding. I've done financing transactions that had to conform to Sharia law (particularly the usury rules). The amount of hypocrisy that goes into making an interest-bearing loan look like something else is amazing.
Since I'm too lazy to put it together this afternoon, please accept this post as a placeholder for a copy-and-paste thousand-line post, with four pictures and an animated graphic of the American flag, flaming you as a DU troll.
America is still going to hell bump.
You can't bring in a Bible, a law textbook, Time magazine - nothing. This ruling has nothing to do with anti-Bible or anti-Christian sentiment. The jurors who did this were idiots.
The outcome might have been different if they had simply shared religious beliefs or even quoted the Bible. After all, lawyers are allowed to serve on juries, despite their knowledge of the law independent of the judge's instructions.
But they did independent outside research, which jurors are explicitly told not to do. They brought outside materials into deliberations. They argued the case and/or the law, which is not their job.
I guess jurors don't have 1st Amendment rights now?
Newspapers have a 1st amendment right to exist, and to publish more or less what they want. I have a right to read them. As a juror, I am not allowed to read accounts of my case until after I have rendered judgment.
Soldiers are not allowed to say anything they like to superiors. Diplomats are not allowed to say anything they want to representatives of foreign countries. Officials of any government agency are allowed to say what they want to anyone at any time, but not if they want to keep their jobs.
This is not a question of rights, but of duties. A juror's duty is to the law. The law of Man, not that of God. If you do not accept that, if you intend to ignore the facts and the instruction and rule based on the Bible, be honest about it. You can be stricken from the jury and go back to your life.
You have the right to hold any belief imaginable, be it Christianity or Santaria or UFOs or Scientology. That is your right -- until and unless it conflicts with your duty. It does not make you a criminal. Just, at worst, an unfit juror. I don't remember anyone being criminally sanctioned for that without obvious and glaring misconduct, like taking bribes. But just know that the harder you bend the rules, the harder they'll snap back when it's discovered.
In the Middle Ages, such loans were often structured as foreign exchange transactions - in exchange for a certain amount in one currency, the client can pick up an amount in a different currency, subject of course to a certain exchange rate, and a handling fee to be paid from time to time thereafter.
The Venetians were cleverer - they declared usury a terrible sin, upon which the City levied a fine... payable in advance on the first of every year, for your convenience.
That Napoleonic Code is still too complicated and hard to understand. I propose we revive the Code of Hammurabi to govern our affairs here. Doesn't this sound much simpler?
If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.
If fire break out in a house, and some one who comes to put it out cast his eye upon the property of the owner of the house, and take the property of the master of the house, he shall be thrown into that self-same fire.
If a man let in the water, and the water overflow the plantation of his neighbor, he shall pay ten gur of corn for every ten gan of land.
Securities law? No problem:
If a merchant entrust money to an agent (broker) for some investment, and the broker suffer a loss in the place to which he goes, he shall make good the capital to the merchant.
If, while on the journey, an enemy take away from him anything that he had, the broker shall swear by God and be free of obligation.
If a merchant give an agent corn, wool, oil, or any other goods to transport, the agent shall give a receipt for the amount, and compensate the merchant therefor. Then he shall obtain a receipt form the merchant for the money that he gives the merchant.
If the agent is careless, and does not take a receipt for the money which he gave the merchant, he can not consider the unreceipted money as his own.
If the agent accept money from the merchant, but have a quarrel with the merchant (denying the receipt), then shall the merchant swear before God and witnesses that he has given this money to the agent, and the agent shall pay him three times the sum.
If the merchant cheat the agent, in that as the latter has returned to him all that had been given him, but the merchant denies the receipt of what had been returned to him, then shall this agent convict the merchant before God and the judges, and if he still deny receiving what the agent had given him shall pay six times the sum to the agent.
Take that, SEC ;)
LOL. There are Imams in the Gulf States who make a good living off of "blessing" financial transactions and declaring them to be in line with Sharia.
"I'd never let someone like you on a jury," one of them said, "because I can't sway you in a million years."
When you have lawyers go out and exclude prospective jurors specifically because they would examine a case in a thoroughly rational manner, then there's no reason to give a shred of respect to the legal process.
Actually, I'd LOVE to be able to argue the Bible, rather than jury instructions that are about as interesting as VCR programing directions. But I'd like to know ahead of time that's what the jury was going to be considering :-)
The securities world would certainly be more interesting if you had to Know Your Customer in the biblical sense.
Many investment bankers are way ahead of you there....
I think it was one with Falstaff in it. Henry the IV? However, Shakespeare never advocated killing lawyers anymore than he did disinheriting his daughter.
I knew getting out of banking was a mistake....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.