Lets ask the Bible...

...if we should sentence this man to death!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/15/texas-bible-jury-death-sentence

 

If a Gun counts as an ''intrument of iron'' then every single soldier fighting any given war should be put to death.

Right?

Read the bible kids, the truth is there!

 

Higgs I have to wonder what is your problem with the way this case was handled, the fact that religion was involved or the fact that the death penalty was involved?

If its the former that makes sense but really ends up being a null point because most people who search something like the bible for answers aren't really looking for answers but are looking for something to reinforce there own views (whether the view is correct is debatable but most will hold the same view with or without reading the bible).

If your problem is with the death penalty then this could be a far more interesting disscussion, but one that we're less likely to come to an agreement on.

 

I am against death penalty. But thats not the point because death penalty (in some US states) is legal.
justifying your verdict with the Bible, however, is not legal nor should it be. Two things: separation of church and state and the fact that any outside influence on the jury is prohibited.
He might have derved capital punishment but please, if you are going to send a man to death do it based on the actual laws under which youre supposed to carry out the punishment and leave your Large Books of Multiple-Choice out of the courtroom.

 

Just to put my cards on the table I support the death penalty in principle though I don't like the proccess in it's current use.

As for this case while I think the fact that a bible was involved in a sentence is inherently wrong, I wouldn't overturn the sentence. The way I interpreted the article was that the jurors where in agreement about whether or not the man was guilty and simply used the bible to sooth moral qualms about the death penalty. TBH in my opinion a moral debate about whether the death penalty is right or wrong not does not belong in a jury room. The jury should be focusing on two questions, is the accused guilty, and what penalty does the nature of the crime warrant according to the law (taking into account mitigating circumstances)?

To me (assuming I have the right interpretation of the article) this is a case of the correct descision for the wrong reasons. Now on the other hand, if the jury convicted him based on what the bible said then this is a different issue entirely and should be looked into very closely.

 

I always thought the jury decided on the question of guilt and the judge decided on the sentence (reading up on the American system this was changed at least once a few years after the case). The evidence proved the guilt of the man regardless of whether or not the jury was consulting the bible thus the death sentence was passed down by the judge in accordance with the law. The article doesn't go into much detail though so i could be wrong with how the Texas legal system works.

Anyway I'm against the death sentence on practical and moral grounds but we've argued about that before on the forums....

 

I thought it was against forum policy to discuss religious matters such as these?

Also, Higss I don't know why you bring up topics like this all the time that have some controversy with religion.

 

I don't think it is against forum policy, though since what I say can be taken as forum policy I should probably be careful about what I say next. Attacking a person's religion is against the forum rules. As an extension of that discussing the factuality of various religions should probably be avoided. Discussing how religions impact the lives of other people is okay as long at the topic is approached lightly and isn't a crusade against some religion.

This isn't (or shouldn't be) the negatives of a given religion but how one played a part in a government proccess that should be devoid of religious opinions.

 

John Wayne Gacey
Ed Gein
Ted Bundy
David Berkowitz
Jeffery Dahmer
Hermen Webster Mudgett

In the named above for the numerous crimes against humanity, and in the name of their victims I proudly say i support the death penalty. Some crimes go beyond forgiveness, and some people just need to be put down.

 

"Forum policy" tries to discourage openly discussing religion itself, not the use or justifications found within religion. And that's only because those discussions regularly become filled with hatred and racism which we do not tolerate.

Of course if the thread gets out of hand it will be closed/deleted. But you guys make that choice.

As far as I'm concerned I'm not religious at all. But as a jury member I don't see why utilizing quotes from any literature would be out of line. Juries are allowed to utilize outside resources (except for opinions or literature regarding the specific case) and the bible, in my opinion, would be an acceptable resource.

However, my opinion here only stands in a circumstance in which the guilt of the accused is already decided. If you were to take a case of--let's get hypothetical--a man kills a woman because she had an abortion, and the jury uses scripture so somehow decide that the murdered is NOT GUILTY because abortion is wrong... that would be a travesty.

So it can go both ways.

 

I'm not even touching this with a 20 ft stick.
Just going to say this: I think that the whole system of having a jury is retarded anyway. How can a group of regular people decide whether a person is guilty or not? I mean, seriously? The focuss should be on the evidence. Proof. Not the opinions of some randomly selected people. Just my two cents.

 

The rules said that discussion, topics, and threads relating to religion are highly discouraged, not just discouraged but highly discouraged and since this thread is based on the role of religion in government I think it relates to religion. So by reading the rule and how it was worded I naturally assumed this is against etiquette ahd Higgs has been making many threads dealing with and relating to religion in various manners which is supposedly to be highly discouraged.

I don't not think it is wise to have word of mouth be forum policy while having rules saying otherwise, people will get the wrong ideas on what is and isn't policy like in my case.

Of course, I do not have any say in what forum policy is or isn't. I'm just voicing my opinion on the matter and that I did not know otherwise because of what the rules said.

 

Aurora: take a small amount of comfort in knowing that all of society is a game and an elaborate prison.

Of course its flawed until you realize how to manipulate it to suit your own interests, then you just get better at playing the game.

 

Just to remind you, this thread isnt about the death penalty. Id be happy to discuss it but in that case please make a new thread.

Joneagle_X: You might have a point. I have limited knowledge of the US justice system so i dont know what is acceptable and what isnt. I think the stumbling block in here might be the lack of details. We dont know if the jury used the Bible as a version of 'friendly advice' or as an factual statement 'my holy book says this so you are at fault'. And there is always the question of influence although in this case I dont see the verdict differ no matter what religion if any the jury takes part in.

And yet so far they remained pretty civil as far as I can judge.

 

Pancake you have heard it from me and the only person who outranks me on forum policy is Jon whom you have also now heard it from, this thread is fine. Is there some particular reason you want this thread closed? If you somehow find it offensive send me or Jon (or another mod if you think we are biased) a PM explaining why you think it is offensive and it will be reviewed. For the record though this forum actually does pretty well with religous disscussions. In fact the primary thing creates the most fights is political disscussions.

Ironically I tink everyone who has offered a direct opinion on this case has said the same thing and that is if the jury used the bible to convict the man there is a problem, while if the jury used the bible to justify the death penalty then that is something different all together.

 

'while if the jury used the bible to justify the death penalty then that is something different all together.'
No, no, no - not justify the penalty. The penalty is supposed to be justified by the laws that are currently being followed. If the jury decided to sentence the man to death instead of giving him 20 years, life in prison or just let him go then its unacceptable. The only thing they can do with the Bible or any other book (again: only as far as I know) is to say: "hey, I find this piece of text very relevant to what you did so I am going to quote a short bit to try and work on your conscience."

 

I was talking moral justification not legal justification. Just because a person is sure someone is guilty and the law says they should be put death doesn't mean someone is instantly going to vote to put them to death. In a dissucssion of punishment, especially that of death I would say religious texts are very relevant just like those of philosophy and ethics.

Like I said if the Bible was used to form an opinion on guilt or innocence then that is a problem. If it was used in a debate between life in prison or death then it as relevant to the disscussion as any text on philosophy or ethics.

 

'If it was used in a debate between life in prison or death then it as relevant to the disscussion as any text on philosophy or ethics.'
You just hit a big issue here. They may not be deciding about the guilt or innocence of the person but they are deciding between a life of imprisoment or capital punishment. Which to me is a pretty big deal. And justyfing the choice of death over imprisoment with a text supposedly inspired by a diety in which the defendant may not believe in might be a problem.
This gets back to the whole juristical system because what it seems to me is that it comes down to a moral judgement of the jury if you should be killed or not.
In my opinion the bible is not a great source of moral justification anyway - I find most of bibles morals outdated, it has been 2000 years afterall. Then cant you bring anything you want to the court to justify your choice? Mein Kampf? And if not then why not? How do you decide what to discriminate against?
I think that the only fair way to do this is to remove this practise altogether.

 

Your point seems to be that moral debates shouldn't mtake place in a jury room, which I agree with. If one does happen though then I thikn all material should be fair game and the cae should be ruled a mistrial if it effects the verdict. If it only effects the sentence then while the case may warrant a second look over to make sure the sentence was fair, it shouldn't be grounds to overturn the sentence on its own (which I believe is the case here).

 

I'm not saying this thread is out of line or should be closed. I was just wondering why no one was saying anything or that so many threads of this type were being allowed even though in the forum rules it said it was highly discouraged and that was anything relating to religion.

The only thing I have a problem with is that it seems Higgs has to constantly make threads to disprove religion or to make seem like its not a good idea to have around, they have all been around that central theme. Even though I don't have a problem with this at all personally, I do think it is disrespectful to those people that are very religious.