Death Penalty tossed because jurors read the bible!

[bholdr]

OK, it's not quite that simple. here's the link: NY times (http://nytimes.com/2005/03/29/national/29bible.html?hp&ex=1112158800&en=cfc9e6cc58c8eaf2& ei=5094&partner=homepage)

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
"The judicial system works very hard to emphasize the rarified, solemn and sequestered nature of jury deliberations," the majority said in a 3-to-2 decision by a panel of the Colorado Supreme Court.

[/ QUOTE ]
3-2...not that comforting. Especially not when the judge told the jurors that they must make an "individual moral assessment" as to whether or not Mr. Harlan should get the death penalty. How do you tell a juror to make a moral decision and then tell him he did something wrong when he consults with what forms his moral foundation? That's messed up.

[bernie]

Wow.

Puts an interesting twist on a pro-life stance, doesn't it?

b

[bholdr]

"How do you tell a juror to make a moral decision and then tell him he did something wrong when he consults with what forms his moral foundation? That's messed up. "

I aggree. it ammounts to the court passing judgment on that person's moral system. it would be different if the jurors had consulted the bible when deciding wether or not to convict a criminal- those desicisions are supposed to e made based on the law, not one's own morals. but, in theis death penalty example, i would be disappointed if the juros didn't cunsult their bibles, qurans, philosophy textbooks, or whatever else they based their morality upon.

[elwoodblues]

Would you be opposed if they consulted Hustler magazine during deliberations to determine whether to give the death penalty? How about L Ron Hubbard's Dianetics?

It's one thing to talk about morality/religious implications during deliberations, it's quite another to bring the old good book in to the room. Jurors quite simply aren't allowed to view evidence that hasn't been presented at trial. I don't know why we should make an exception for a religious book (or a porno mag, or whatever other outside source they want to consult.)

[bholdr]

what if they had the relavant passages memorized (mny people do)? would that be any different?

when jurors are instructed to make a moral descision rather than a legal one, i think they should (probably) be able to consult that which forms the basis of their moral systems, as for Hubbard and Hustler, the courts aren't in the business of placing one moral system above any other.

However, this whole thing kinda highlights why i am so anti-death-penalty anyway: other people's morals shouldn't decide who lives or dies.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
the courts aren't in the business of placing one moral system above any other.

[/ QUOTE ]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA, I'm sorry to divert from the original post and theme, but that part actually made me laugh out loud.

Cody

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Jurors quite simply aren't allowed to view evidence that hasn't been presented at trial.

[/ QUOTE ]
1. This was to decide whether the defendant deserved the death penalty, not whether he was guilty or innocent. He's still been convicted, but he's getting life w/o parole instead.
2. The jurors were specifically asked to make a moral assessment. How can you then deprive them of what makes up their moral foundation?

[ QUOTE ]
In the decision on Monday, the dissenting judges said the majority had confused the internal codes of right and wrong that juries are expected to possess in such weighty moral matters with the outside influences that are always to be avoided, like newspaper articles or television programs about the case. The jurors consulted Bibles, the minority said, not to look for facts or alternative legal interpretations, but for wisdom.

"The biblical passages the jurors discussed constituted either a part of the jurors' moral and religious precepts or their general knowledge, and thus were relevant to their court-sanctioned moral assessment," the minority wrote.

[/ QUOTE ]

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
The jurors were specifically asked to make a moral assessment. How can you then deprive them of what makes up their moral foundation?

[/ QUOTE ]

People weigh moral decisions every day without actually hauling in the text. I don't have much of a problem with them discussing morals/religion during deliberations. It is inevitable. I have a HUGE problem with them bringing in the book.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
People weigh moral decisions every day without actually hauling in the text.

[/ QUOTE ]
But many of those decisions aren't life-or-death decisions. This was.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have much of a problem with them discussing morals/religion during deliberations. It is inevitable. I have a HUGE problem with them bringing in the book.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please elaborate, because this doesn't make any sense. You have no problem w/ people making moral/religious decisions during the decision on sentencing, but you don't want them to consult the cornerstone of their moral/religious foundation? Please explain this.

[elwoodblues]

Part of the reason I don't have much of a problem is due to the resignation that it is absolutely inevitable. Bringing a religious text into the jury room (when it hasn't been admitted into evidence) is no different in my mind than bringing in a medical text or allowing the jurors to surf the net to find answers to their questions. Jurors are allowed to bring themselves to the room and they are allowed to bring evidence presented at trial. Beyond that, keep it out.

[BCPVP]

You are aware that this was a sentencing hearing, not the criminal trial. He was already shown to be guilty. They were just deciding whether to give him the death penalty. If we were talking about the criminal trial, I'd agree with you. But that's not what's going on here. They were asked to make a moral decision and denying them access to what forms their moral foundation is extremely hypocritical, imo.

[elwoodblues]

Yes I understand that it was the sentencing phase. We still wouldn't allow people to bring in books on torture methods if the accused was guilty of torture to determine, for example, if the method he chose was a really bad form of torture.

[Zygote]

i don't trust jurors to ever make legal decisions. the jury system should be completly abolished. period.

there is no reason for them to specifically disallow the bible without disallowing every bias that makes up an average person/juror. they only did it because they must actively attempt to seperate the courts from the church. But what if someone has biased ideas that don't come from religion specifcally? church-state seperation is really just a symbol for the seperation of state and biases and shouldn't always be taken literally as church-state.

[BCPVP]

That's not a very good analogy. You still haven't answered how a juror can be asked to make a moral decision but be denied access to what makes up their moral foundation.

[ QUOTE ]
That's not a very good analogy. You still haven't answered how a juror can be asked to make a moral decision but be denied access to what makes up their moral foundation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jurors are not asked to make a "moral" decision. They are asked to make the decision that is consistent with the law based upon the facts they have been presented. Some feel that the death penalty is immoral, irrespective of the fact that it may be the law of the particular state. Those people should be excluded from a death penalty jury up front. It is not for the jury to determine what the law should be. It is the jury's function to find the facts and, as appropriate, apply the law to those facts.

A juror takes an oath from the outset to reach his/her decision based solely on the facts presented in the courtroom and the law as instructed by the judge, and only the judge. So what is the point of consulting the bible, or any other text, in the course of deliberations? Everything you should need has been presented to you. To the extent you are called upon to use your judgment, that's what you use ... your judgment. Your innate ability to determine wrong from right, based upon whatever value system you use. As does everyone else in the room, based upon their own judgment. I cannot think of a reason to consult the Bible (which some would argue sets forth "laws" that are not necessarily consistent with our laws), L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics, or any other outside text, in the course of jury deliberations, which reason is consistent with the oath taken by a juror.

I should add that I am aware that the judge instructed the jurors that they had to make a "moral" decision or judgment, or something like that. I'm obviously not there so I don't know all of the circumstances or the context -- but in general I think that's a horrible instruction, for the reasons I stated.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't trust jurors to ever make legal decisions. the jury system should be completly abolished. period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Juries don't make legal decisions; they decide questions of fact. Judges make legal decisions. It may seem like I'm nitpicking, but this is a critical distinction.

[BCPVP]

From the article:
[ QUOTE ]
Legal experts said that Colorado was unusual in its language requiring jurors in capital felony cases to explicitly consult a moral compass. Most states that have restored the death penalty weave in a discussion of moral factors, lawyers said, along with the burden that jurors must decide whether aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors in voting on execution.

[/ QUOTE ]
So yes, niss, they were asked to explicitly make a moral decision as to whether this man deserved death, not whether he was innocent or guilty. He was already convicted. The jury was deciding sentencing.

[ QUOTE ]
So what is the point of consulting the bible, or any other text, in the course of deliberations?

[/ QUOTE ]
The dissenting judges wrote:
"The jurors consulted Bibles, the minority said, not to look for facts or alternative legal interpretations, but for wisdom.

"The biblical passages the jurors discussed constituted either a part of the jurors' moral and religious precepts or their general knowledge, and thus were relevant to their court-sanctioned moral assessment," the minority wrote."

[Dead]

Unfortunate, but the correct decision.

Blame the judge for this guy not getting the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
So yes, niss, they were asked to explicitly make a moral decision as to whether this man deserved death, not whether he was innocent or guilty. He was already convicted. The jury was deciding sentencing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I posted about this subsequently. I think it's a terrible instruction. I don't know how the prosecution would allow it (it's quite possible he/she objected and was overruled). From 2000 miles away, I think the instruction should have been that the law provides for the death penalty in certain circumstances, and that it's up to the jurors to decide if those circumstances are present based on the testimony they heard. It's not a "moral" issue. Again, if you throw morality into it, you're asking for folks to rule against the death penalty no matter what, based on beliefs that have nothing to do with the case.

With respect to the dissent's statement, all I can say is that I believe it is not legitimate (I have not read the opinion). Jurors are warned in every case that they are not to discuss their case with anyone (other than the other jurors). So you can't go to your mother, father, cousin, friends, pastor, rabbi etc. for wisdom. Why is a written document -- any document -- different?

Of course, this is all my (worthless) opinion. I certainly can see the other side; I just think it's wrong.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's a terrible instruction.

[/ QUOTE ]
Regardless of what you think, it is the law in Colorado.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not a "moral" issue. Again, if you throw morality into it, you're asking for folks to rule against the death penalty no matter what, based on beliefs that have nothing to do with the case.

[/ QUOTE ]
It most certainly is a moral issue. If any juror's don't believe in the death penalty, that should be allowed to factor in, just as if a juror did believe in the death penalty should be allowed to weigh in. Regardless, the vote for death was unanimous.
[ QUOTE ]
Jurors are warned in every case that they are not to discuss their case with anyone (other than the other jurors). So you can't go to your mother, father, cousin, friends, pastor, rabbi etc. for wisdom. Why is a written document -- any document -- different?

[/ QUOTE ]
"In the decision on Monday, the dissenting judges said the majority had confused the internal codes of right and wrong that juries are expected to possess in such weighty moral matters with the outside influences that are always to be avoided, like newspaper articles or television programs about the case."
As I asked elwoodblues, how can you ask someone to make such a weighty moral decision and then deprive them of the source of their moral beliefs? The jurors could just as likely have consulted the Bible and ruled against the death penalty, so it isn't likely that the Bible played an immense role in the case.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
If any juror's don't believe in the death penalty, that should be allowed to factor in, just as if a juror did believe in the death penalty should be allowed to weigh in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that jurors who don't believe in applying the death penalty are allowed to serve on cases in which a death penalty could be meted out. I think that they're eliminated during voir dire.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it's a terrible instruction.

[/ QUOTE ]
Regardless of what you think, it is the law in Colorado.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not a "moral" issue. Again, if you throw morality into it, you're asking for folks to rule against the death penalty no matter what, based on beliefs that have nothing to do with the case.

[/ QUOTE ]
It most certainly is a moral issue. If any juror's don't believe in the death penalty, that should be allowed to factor in, just as if a juror did believe in the death penalty should be allowed to weigh in. Regardless, the vote for death was unanimous.
[ QUOTE ]
Jurors are warned in every case that they are not to discuss their case with anyone (other than the other jurors). So you can't go to your mother, father, cousin, friends, pastor, rabbi etc. for wisdom. Why is a written document -- any document -- different?

[/ QUOTE ]
"In the decision on Monday, the dissenting judges said the majority had confused the internal codes of right and wrong that juries are expected to possess in such weighty moral matters with the outside influences that are always to be avoided, like newspaper articles or television programs about the case."
As I asked elwoodblues, how can you ask someone to make such a weighty moral decision and then deprive them of the source of their moral beliefs? The jurors could just as likely have consulted the Bible and ruled against the death penalty, so it isn't likely that the Bible played an immense role in the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt that the law in Colorado requires that a judge must instruct a jury that the death penalty is a "moral" decision. Perhaps I'm wrong. If you know something specific, I'd be interested.

Your statement about jurors who don't believe in the death penalty being allowed to factor that opinion into their reasoning, however, is flat out wrong. As Dead said, jurors who honestly state that they are opposed to the death penalty are generally excluded from death cases. As I said before, cases are to be decided on the facts and law presented. It's not for a juror to decide what the law should be. If a juror is unwilling to apply the law that the legislature has enacted, then he/she cannot sit on that jury.

Your last question: nobody said the jurors are denied of their beliefs. They bring those beliefs with them into the jury room. What they can't bring into the jury room is something other than their brain, their life experiences, and their intellect to assist them in making a decision. 12 people sit, discuss, and reach a decision among themselves. Period. They don't consult any other laws, any other authorities, any other people. I think the dissent is wrong, as did a majority of the judges of that court.

[HDPM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If any juror's don't believe in the death penalty, that should be allowed to factor in, just as if a juror did believe in the death penalty should be allowed to weigh in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that jurors who don't believe in applying the death penalty are allowed to serve on cases in which a death penalty could be meted out. I think that they're eliminated during voir dire.

[/ QUOTE ]


The court's opinion is interesting in this regard because it talks about defects in the voir dire that it previously found problematic but not reversible error. The case was appealed before and the Colorado Supreme Court had some problems with voir dire but let the death penalty stand. The case then had a post conviction proceeding filed and the trial court tossed the death penalty after hearing from the jurors. The Colorado Supreme Court then heard the appeal of the district court's grant of relief. Anyway, that is a long way of saying there were probably defects in jury selection in the trial court. I need to go read the opinion on the original appeal, but I have not. Sort of interesting.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't trust jurors to ever make legal decisions. the jury system should be completly abolished. period.

[/ QUOTE ]

You people have some incredibly terrifying ideas and beliefs. The jury system provides a fundamental safeguard to freedom. If the U.S. ever abolished juries I'd leave in a heartbeat.

Jury Nullification: Cornerstone of Freedom (http://)