Posted on 03/29/2005 7:08:50 AM PST by areafiftyone
DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- Ruling that juries cannot turn to the Bible for advice during deliberations, a divided Colorado Supreme Court threw out the death penalty for a convicted murderer because jurors discussed Bible verses.
In a 3-2 vote on Monday, justices ordered Robert Harlan to serve life without parole for kidnapping Rhonda Maloney and raping her at gunpoint for two hours before fatally shooting her.
Authorities said Maloney, a 25-year-old cocktail waitress, was on her way home from work at a casino. Harlan later admitted killing her, but said he was addled by cocaine, alcohol and rage.
Harlan was sentenced to death in 1995, but defense lawyers learned that five jurors had looked up such Bible verses as "eye for eye, tooth for tooth," copied them and discussed them while deliberating behind closed doors.
Defense attorney Kathleen Lord, arguing before the state Supreme Court last month, said the jurors had gone outside the law. "They went to the Bible to find out God's position on capital punishment," she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Thanks. I have to do better searches!
This is an unenforcable standard. Religious beliefs are at the core of everyones morals, ethics, and sense of right and wrong. To ask that a perspective juror check their sense of right and wrong at the door is counterintuitive in cases where they are going to be asked to pass judgement in regard to the severity of sentencing. The only way this would be possible is if the judiciary is going to provide a common set of standards which everyone would be required to go by when deciding sentencing. BUT, if there was a set standard then why require the jury to make a determination regarding the sentencing at all?
My arguement was that "the law" in this case was unjust and I gave my reason why I thought it was unjust.
I agree. As I said in a piece at http://www.christianebooks.com/gravestonesandbiblesinjuryrooms.htm, "What would have been considered a normal thing just a generation ago, is now justification for overturning the will of a jury. This is why Democrats are turning red."
Those are all good! Could you do me the huge favor of citing the Bible verses so I can look all of them up in my King James? I recognize some of them, but not all.
Thanks, MS
A judge can consult whatever he wants, Bible, dictionary, whatever. A jury is simply not allowed to. You cannot, even as a juror, tell of your own personal knowledge about a subject. It is highly restrictive. I understand why these restrictions are in place. Hmmm, not sure how much I agree with them, but they are probably a good idea.
Could you do me the huge favor .........
The value is in finding them your self. Sorry.
What we've done is use the First Amendment to single out religious belief from all other modes of belief and mark it as a suspect, inferior, and even disqualifying factor for civic duty.
This piece of excrement is spared but the "non person" Terri Schiavo is sentenced to death when she has committed no crime. God help us all.
Oh my goodness, we don't dare hurt a vicious psycho rapist murderer. But the courts have no problem inflicting cruel punishment on the relatives of the dead and maimed victims.... I feel like barfing again.
Im sure you can see the folly in your own reply.
"All that is essential for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
Clear enough the "legal" system of this nation has deviated from the only One who knows justice. Those in power over our nation are sick and we closely, yet blindly, follow.
Most definately agree with Governor Owens on this. The majority err when they claim Christians may not consult the higher authority /source of their religious faith when deciding a capitol case. The God Given Right to Life ought not be taken as lightly as Judge Greer in Florida seems to. And Jurist ought be accorded the same rights the
court has claimed since Marbury v. Madison,1803. Our Constitution and the enabling Act for this State cannot be
reconciled to the unjust decision of the majority.It ought
be appealed to the 10th Circuit and OVerturned with prejudice.Christians and rleigious sentiment cannot be
excluded from the legal process.
maybe a carton of cigarretts or two to the right citizen
serving a life sentence already could secure the justice denied by this majority?
It's a thought.
The problem is the POS was allowed TEN YEARS of additional time.
Capital punishment should never be delayed if it is to have any value as a deterrent.
The defendant should get an appeal that is expedited through the system, definitely under one year from the first conviction. If there is no change of verdict in the second trial, kill the turd within hours of the second verdict.
Excuse me but this is only true in the criminal part of the trial. When the sentance is deliberated this doesn't hold true. They used the law introduced in the trial to find him guilty, then some of them used the bible to decide if it was ethical to sentence the person to the death penaltry.
What is the differenc in doing that and simply using an innate sense of right and wrong in deciding? None, except the bible is a much surer guide to morality than say a "progressives" sense of right and wrong.
Thank you for pointing out this oversight on my part, now I understand the outrage!
Try searching with just one or two words of the title - it worked for me :)
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.