That is simply incorrect. Juries are supposed to look at the facts and instructions in light of their own experience and moral framework. That is why you have juries in the first place. If juries are to be limited to looking at facts in a vacuum, they serve no purpose. There is no requirment that they do so.
For many people, the Bible is an important part of their life experience and moral framework. It is completely appropriate that they should consider the Bible when serving on a jury. That is what they are supposed to do.
Requiring that jurors rely only on what is said in the court-room gives far too much authority to the Judge and the judicial system. The people of the Jury are supposed to "be themselves" and serve as a reality check.
"That is simply incorrect. Juries are supposed to look at the facts and instructions in light of their own experience and moral framework."
There are two questions in any trial - questions of fact and questions of law. The judge answers questions of law. Juries are supposed to bring their experience to bear to determine the probability of a putative fact being true. For captital punishment, those facts are usually along the lines of whether the defendant poses a continuing danger to the community (including guards and other inmates). Whether God exists and His/Hers/Its position is wholly irrelevant to the factual determination of the jury. Thus, it has no place in the deliberations.
"For many people, the Bible is an important part of their life experience and moral framework. It is completely appropriate that they should consider the Bible when serving on a jury. That is what they are supposed to do."
Yep. That's why they ask you if you have any religious issues during voir dire. If you have no religious issues applying the law as you are told to, your religious concerns are at an end. Facts like whether the defendant committed all of the elements of a crime have no religious element now do they?
"Requiring that jurors rely only on what is said in the court-room gives far too much authority to the Judge and the judicial system. The people of the Jury are supposed to "be themselves" and serve as a reality check."
No, that's not what the jury is there for at all. The jury serves as a factfinder. And yes, you don't want the jury going beyond what the judge allows in because you don't want the jury hearing garbage from the defense or the prosecution that the jury is not allowed to hear. The law prohibits the jury from hearing about some things (like the fruits of an illegal search), so the judge has to determine if a specific piece of evidence falls into one of these categories. That's not "too much authority" that's the way the system is set up.