Man faces execution after jurors consulted bible to decide his fate

doctoremma

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18448

I didn't know which board to start this on so so went for both - mods, merge at will.

I think it's a travesty. End of. (My opening gambit was different over in Christianity )

A summary:
'And if he smite him with an instrument of iron ... the murderer shall surely be put to death' - Biblical passage relied on by jurors
Amnesty International has issued an urgent appeal for a man facing execution in three weeks' time despite the fact that jurors at his trial consulted passages from the Bible in deciding his fate.
Thirty-two-year-old Khristian Oliver is set to be executed in Texas, USA on 5 November. He was sentenced to death in 1999 for a murder committed during a burglary. While deciding whether he should live or die, jurors at his trial consulted copies of the Bible, including text supporting the death penalty, calling into serious question their impartiality.

Dades

You are subject to the whims of 12 of your peers.

If 12 of your peers rely solely on the bible for their morality, then tough break.

It wasn't a point of law they were debating - it was a question of what punishment was befitting the crime. There's no law that dictates how they decide which option to go for - though I find it bizarre a legal system allows civilians to make such a decision.

You murder someone in Texas at your peril.

(Am happy to host this thread, or take merged posts from over yonder)

seamus

Dades wrote: »

though I find it bizarre a legal system allows civilians to make such a decision.

I think this is less a religious issue than a moral/philosophical one.

It's well known that the victims of crime are the last people who should be allowed to determine the punishment of the perpetrator and by and large I would only enstrust such an action to someone with sufficient experience and objectivity - the judge is pretty close to this.

Common sense would dictate that a "jury of your peers" would come up with the most appropriate and fair punishment for a crime, but in reality most people are incapable of disconnecting their subjectivity and will act on emotion rather than fact.

People come up with all sorts of odd punishments for crimes and the punishment is wholly subjective and often doesn't fit the crime. This is just a group of jurors coming up with a punishment based on their own beliefs. There are non-religious people who believe that rapists should be castrated and tortured, for example.

kmick

He had been found guilty and the question left to determine was whether he should die in accordance with state law. Now if they were consulting the bible to determine if he had broken a law that would be a bit worse. If you break the law in the bible belt you are coming up against bible justice.

doctoremma

kmick wrote: »

He had been found guilty and the question left to determine was whether he should die in accordance with state law. Now if they were consulting the bible to determine if he had broken a law that would be a bit worse. If you break the law in the bible belt you are coming up against bible justice.

What if the jury were seeking to meet their own ends (a place in heaven) by obeying the word of god...

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

What if the jury were seeking to meet their own ends (a place in heaven) by obeying the word of god...

It would be an incredible coincidence to find 12 people in Texas who believe that they earn a place in heaven by making such a decision. You'd have more chance of finding them all to be vegetarians..

Most Texans, due to their beliefs as Protestants or Catholics, would believe no such thing.

Valmont

I can't help not losing sight of the fact that he broke into someone's home and murdered them for whatever reason, maybe they were in his way. Maybe God didn't tell him to do it, but he is a worse abomination than the folks on the jury.

GLaDOS

Valmont wrote: »

I can't help not losing sight of the fact that he broke into someone's home and murdered them for whatever reason, maybe they were in his way. Maybe God didn't tell him to do it, but he is a worse abomination than the folks on the jury.

Yeah, it's wrong, but it's hard to feel particularly sorry for him

stevejazzx

Dades wrote: »

You are subject to the whims of 12 of your peers.

If 12 of your peers rely solely on the bible for their morality, then tough break.

It wasn't a point of law they were debating - it was a question of what punishment was befitting the crime. There's no law that dictates how they decide which option to go for - though I find it bizarre a legal system allows civilians to make such a decision.

You murder someone in Texas at your peril.

(Am happy to host this thread, or take merged posts from over yonder)

I can't openly consult my copy of Lord of Rings in deciding someones fate, if I do I expect to be disqualified as a Juror. Furthermore bringing religion into the courtroom seems exceptionally unconstitutional.

Mark Hamill

stevejazzx wrote: »

I can't openly consult my copy of Lord of Rings in deciding someones fate, if I do I expect to be disqualified as a Juror. Furthermore bringing religion into the courtroom seems exceptionally unconstitutional.

Don't they swear people in with the bible in America, or is that a hollywood thing?

Dades

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Don't they swear people in with the bible in America, or is that a hollywood thing?

They do indeed.

TBH I'm gonna close this version of this thread. The one in Christianity seems to be generating more interest. If anyone particularly wants their post(s) here to be merged with it let me know.