Jury used the bible to decide fate

rlrose328 · April 21, 2009, 06:01:10 PM

http://www.click2houston.com/news/19229960/detail.html

And the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case. I guess there's no way to know definitively if the jury DID use the bible passage to decide the case. They claim they used them for bible study after deliberations and that they read scriptures to help them feel better about their verdict. Can they ban Christian jurors from having their bibles with them in the jury room? Or using their faith in the scriptures to decide a verdict?

Either way, I believe the SC should have heard the case.

Whitney · April 21, 2009, 08:28:10 PM

I don't see why the supreme court won't review this situation. If the jury members can't even all agree on how many bibles were in the deliberation room or what their purpose was, that's a good indicator that most of them are lying about what really went on. How could you possibly forget about why the bibles were there when you were making a very important decision...I'd remember almost every word from the deliberation.

Why does crap like this only seem to happen in Texas?! Maybe it's just confirmation bias since I'm in Texas and have come to expect stuff like this from the Texan masses.

Will · April 21, 2009, 08:58:36 PM

Quote from: "Whitney"I don't see why the supreme court won't review this situation.

They're probably afraid of the considerable political fallout from the appropriate ruling. If they rule that it was unconstitutional (and it was), they give credence to the artificial claim that Christians are persecuted. If they rule that it was constitutional, they'd be setting a precedent that could very well lead to a theocratic government. It's a can of worms, and to be honest the current bench hosts several cowards (and several partisans).

rlrose328 · April 21, 2009, 10:27:56 PM

Quote from: "Will"
Quote from: "Whitney"I don't see why the supreme court won't review this situation.
They're probably afraid of the considerable political fallout from the appropriate ruling. If they rule that it was unconstitutional (and it was), they give credence to the artificial claim that Christians are persecuted. If they rule that it was constitutional, they'd be setting a precedent that could very well lead to a theocratic government. It's a can of worms, and to be honest the current bench hosts several cowards (and several partisans).

You nailed it, Will. I think that's exactly why they won't hear it. No matter the ruling, they're screwed and they just don't want to go there.

It just boggles. :crazy:

VanReal · April 22, 2009, 12:05:43 AM

What an absolute cop-out. Why would they worry about the fall-out as they are appointed for life, it's not like they get voted in they are there until they retire or die. (Or apparently visit Texas and wind up in jail with a jury full of bible carriers.) They are able to make decisions based on the law without fear of that kind of fall-out which is the entire point of being appointed, maybe truly it's just because they think bible thumpers should be running the juries.

Jurors are suppose to base their deliberation on the presented facts of the case and the laws as explained to them and as written. You are not suppose to base them on your own personal beliefs and/or moral standings, opinions, and or supposed common sense. Of course some emotion is going to creep in but they do remind you that those are to be put aside while making a decision. If they issued their verdict through their bibles and that caused them to over-look or ignore any point of law that is jury nullification and is a violation of the rule of law not to mention grounds for a mistrial. This is extremely disappointing.

liveyoungdiefast · April 22, 2009, 05:49:15 AM

With jurors like that he not only deserves a new sentence but a retrial.

A jury using the Old Testament as the ultimate authority is about as reliable as a jury of cocaine addicts.

Prometheus · April 22, 2009, 07:06:56 AM

That's a frickin abomination. What are we the roman empire? Hope enough people raise enough hell about this to get something done.

SSY · April 22, 2009, 07:57:08 AM

Why not simply bar them from being on a jury for lack of sound mind? If I were ever in court, I would really hope that the people deciding on my future had the presence of mind to disregard fairytales.

Prometheus · April 22, 2009, 08:17:46 AM

Quote[Why not simply bar them from being on a jury for lack of sound mind? If I were ever in court, I would really hope that the people deciding on my future had the presence of mind to disregard fairytales.
/quote]

"Sure your honor. We'll vote on this issue just don't let the bogey man know we're here." Rofl good one dude.

rlrose328 · April 22, 2009, 04:54:06 PM

Quote from: "VanReal"What an absolute cop-out. Why would they worry about the fall-out as they are appointed for life, it's not like they get voted in they are there until they retire or die. (Or apparently visit Texas and wind up in jail with a jury full of bible carriers.) They are able to make decisions based on the law without fear of that kind of fall-out which is the entire point of being appointed, maybe truly it's just because they think bible thumpers should be running the juries.

I don't think they're afraid for their careers... I think they're afraid for future cases that will FLOOD them AND the state of the union in general were they to step in and make a decision on this case.

Quote from: "VanReal"Jurors are suppose to base their deliberation on the presented facts of the case and the laws as explained to them and as written. You are not suppose to base them on your own personal beliefs and/or moral standings, opinions, and or supposed common sense. Of course some emotion is going to creep in but they do remind you that those are to be put aside while making a decision. If they issued their verdict through their bibles and that caused them to over-look or ignore any point of law that is jury nullification and is a violation of the rule of law not to mention grounds for a mistrial. This is extremely disappointing.

Yes, it is... it most assuredly is. I haven't researched it yet... I wonder if the ACLU has gotten involved or if they fear the judicial fall-out as well.

Bediddle · April 22, 2009, 06:06:23 PM

I am not an American, but doesn't the USA have a very strict separation of church and state?

If that is the case, then what happened in this case is the ultimate betrayal of that incredibly important cornerstone of American society.

rlrose328 · April 22, 2009, 06:23:23 PM

Quote from: "Bediddle"I am not an American, but doesn't the USA have a very strict separation of church and state?

Technically... yes. In theory, anyway. But the most Christian among us will insist that because those exact words aren't in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, it's just a liberal interpretation of the First Amendment. Of there are the ones who say it's to protect the churches from government interference, not the other way around. So I wouldn't say it's "very strict" by any means, unfortunately.

Quote from: "Bediddle"If that is the case, then what happened in this case is the ultimate betrayal of that incredibly important cornerstone of American society.

I do agree with you there. :hail:

News:

Jury used the bible to decide fate