A Texas man killed his victim by shooting him and beating him with the barrel of a gun. During deliberations, the jury consulted the Bible and found this passage:
35:16 And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.The murderer said his Constitutional rights were challenged, and took it to the Supreme Court, which turned away the challenge.
Does this mean that you can be executed for working on Sunday?
Exodus 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.Court Turns Down Challenge To Jury's Use Of Bible
RSS Feed
I have to work on Sundays (every other one). Am I headed for the hot place?
If they really believed in the bible, they would have remembered the teachings of Jesus: he that is without sin, let him cast the first stone.
Note to self: before doing any smiting in Texas, make sure to have an instrument of copper or bronze available.
How unlucky for him that the jury was entirely made up of fundamentalist Orthodox Jews. I mean, really, what are the odds in Texas?
Seems like sharia is not confined to islam…
Agreed Angusm, copper or bronze; iron is straight out.
Oh Texas, is there anything you can't do?
@#1
No worries, Exodus is Old Testament, so the Sabbath is Saturday.
It seems like the other evidence was pretty compelling. I mean if the other evidence in the case showed that he shoot and beat a guy with his gun the bible passage sounds pretty irrelevant.
Don't Mess With Texas!
There must be something in the water down there that kills off the frontal lobes.
This is really going to hurt the shrimping industry in Galveston.
Does this mean that you can be executed for working on Sunday?
No, it means that courts are extremely reluctant to interfere with the jury process.
Abraham Lincoln held that the right to trial by jury was more important than the right to vote. There was a Supreme Court case, sometime in the '80s as I recall, in which a jury was found to have been getting drunk, smoking weed, and snorting coke during lunch breaks, and the Court refused to invalidate the verdict.
I think the point is that the law itself and the sentencing guidelines were well-established in secular law.
This guy was up for the death penalty before anyone opened a Bible.
Now if there was a law in Texas against working the sabbath, and the death penalty was one of the possible penalties, then we'd have apples-to-apples here.
Of course, that wouldn't be a secular law, so you could appeal that. Murder, however, has established reasoning behind its criminality that don't rely solely on religious presuppositions.
Now I wonder why they didn't turn to the "turn the other cheek" part of the Bible? Oh yeah. Texas.
Bible: OK. Dictionary: Not OK.
see: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1123059911527
This country is FUCKED.
In other news, spork attacks have risen 1000%.
Surely guns are made of steel, not iron??
Is anyone saying the guy was innocent?
@7/HighlyEvolved:
I think the point is that they used the bible in deciding whether to invoke the death penalty (not necessarily in deciding the guilt/innocence).
Odd the Supreme Court didnt even take it up. Sure it'll get bitchslapped down 5-4 by the fascist majority, but its worth a try. Who knows? Maybe Kennedy wakes up on the right side of the bed that day and flips.
What if the victim had been beaten to death by a bible?
Ummm... I don't think he was found guilty of breaking biblical law. It sounds like he got the death penalty for shooting and beating a person to death in a state that has capital punishment. The bible doesn't seem very important here.
Hmm... maybe they should consult this passage too:
Matthew 7-1: "Judge not, that ye be not judged."
it will take too long to weed out the Bush-stuffed Supreme Court by natural causes. Direct action may be needed.
Let's not forget, in light of this we need to mandate 6 day work weeks, school weeks, etc. I don't recall any talk of vacation either, so time off (including sick days) that's all gotta go.
I've no doubt Roberts will lead the way convening the Supreme Court 6 days a week, 52 weeks a year. That should afford them ample time to amend the Constitution so we can stone disobedient children to death, and outlaw shrimp.
Exodus 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
Is that Sunday or Saturday? the seventh day of the week changes depending on which authority you ask.
will they just hurry up and secede already?
Do you guys seriously think the guy should get away with murder because he had the good fortune to kill some one in a state full of idiots? I can't follow your logic. I don't know why the Supreme Court would take it up because the jury is a group of peers and as far as I know can't be selected based on religious appearance (in other words you couldn't keep fundies out), it would have been different if the Judge used religion.
No, Mark, don't give them any ideas!
The Abe Lincoln quote above deserves a thank you, here tendered: Thx.
Well, yeah. This is (arguably) the downside to trial by jury.
The flip side is jury nullification.
Pick your poison.
I thought it was up to the judge to sentence the accused, in the event that the jury finds the accused guilty.
Because it would be highly illogical to decide guilt or innocence in a modern individual case based solely on an ancient religious text. I'm guessing they determined the man's guilt, then used the Bible passage to justify their suggestion of the death penalty to the judge.
Ultimately, it's the judge's call. It wouldn't matter if the jury said the man should be beaten with wet noodles as per a particularly odd bit of Weird Al fanfiction. The judge would acknowledge their suggestion as usual, then pass whatever sentence he believes is right.
The article doesn't mention his motive or if there was another crime involved. This could easily seal the deal for capital punishment.
That's how we do it in Texas, and if you don't like it, you can GIT OUT. *points down the road*
Juries have the power to choose any verdict they want, regardless of whether they believe any written laws were broken. (Citizens, always push for 'not guilty' in drug charges!) Thus I would interpret the judge's verdict as being for the purpose of holding up that aspect of the legal system whether or not a bible gets involved, as opposed to welcoming religious principals into the courtroom itself.
anything useful in the Koran? Allow one, allow all.
I actually don't see a huge problem with this.
The whole purpose of trial by jury is that the evidence is weighed by a panel of ordinary citizens. This means judging people by the community's shared standards; in a largely religious community it makes sense that their reasoning will be influenced by their religious beliefs. It's just another set of shared presuppositions about how morality and society (should) work that combine to make up the local culture.
Would you be happier if they hadn't quoted that passage? They'd still have followed the same thought processes to arrive at their verdict.
The Bible reference is pretty irrelevant, seeing as how the guy beat someone with a gun after shooting them. I mean, really. Anyone else see how this is getting more attention than it deserves? He did the deed, now he should pay the piper. I think he's drawing at straws because he had no defense and the atheists took the bait. I'm no fan of anyone pushing their religion on others....especially Texans!...but this case isn't about religion. The guy beat someone with the barrel of his gun after shooting them.
@ #11 - Sign me up for that jury, please. Woot.
> I actually don't see a huge problem with this.
Do you think people who work on the Sabbath be put to death?
was the defendant a christian?
If anyone's interested, here's the SCOTUS decision (PDF link): http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/08-833_bio.pdf
"Would you be happier if they hadn't quoted that passage? They'd still have followed the same thought processes to arrive at their verdict."
Wel.. yes.
There is that, how to you say it?, "separation of church and state" thing.
So we make decisions based on our agreed upon laws and rules and not those in some religious text. If the judge were muslim and had consulted the qur'ran then there would have been even more dissent.
the other side of this then is "well it says in the bible that gays should be smited so we can't let them marry." And we say: well this is a civil case and not a religious case. If it is going before the court, then it is all the same ball of wax: we abide by a set of judicial laws and not an ancient book. The ancient book is for the religious types who gather around that particular book. The basic laws are for EVERYONE.
@ Pinhead
Close. It depends a little. Juries can't invoke the death penalty unless the prosecution asks for it. They do not decide the sentence until after the verdict. He would have already been found guilty. During the second part of the trial the jury hears more evidence. They make a reccomendation and the judge considers and then decides. In some states the judge can not override. In Texas the judge can override the jury and change the sentence.
Judges should be reluctant to interfere with the jury process without good reason. And let's assume for the moment that the guilty party would have gotten the death penalty anyway.
The real tragedy here is that citizens are allowed (and somehow think it's appropriate) to consult mythology to guide decisions about another person's life. In a different locale, perhaps a different mythology gets consulted and the sentence is not death. Anyone else see a problem here?
And, just for fun, compare the various translations of Numbers 35:16 and see the range of ways that it could be interpreted:
http://bible.cc/numbers/35-16.htm
Some translations emphasize the iron content, some emphasize the act of murder itself.
"Would you be happier if they hadn't quoted that passage? They'd still have followed the same thought processes to arrive at their verdict."
Wel.. yes.
There is that, how to you say it?, "separation of church and state" thing.
So we make decisions based on our agreed upon laws and rules and not those in some religious text. If the judge were muslim and had consulted the qur'ran then there would have been even more dissent.
the other side of this then is "well it says in the bible that gays should be smited so we can't let them marry." And we say: well this is a civil case and not a religious case. If it is going before the court, then it is all the same ball of wax: we abide by a set of judicial laws and not an ancient book. The ancient book is for the religious types who gather around that particular book. The basic laws are for EVERYONE.
"Do you think people who work on the Sabbath be put to death?"
He was already found guilty of violating the law by murdering someone. He was not found guilty of breaking religious law. The decision being made was to invoke capital punishment for the crime he was convicted of or not to invoke capital punishment. There is a huge difference here and you're not seeing it!
Personally, I think we should do away with CP, but this is very very different from what you are suggesting.
@31 No, I don't. And neither do that jury. I wasn't saying "let's adopt biblical law", hilarious though some bits of Leviticus are.
I'm saying that any jury is going to make its decision based on their shared ideas about how society ought to work. Religion is a powerful force in many people's lives, shaping their views of morality. So in a religious community, it's inevitable that the currently and locally fashionable version of religious morality is going to shape how those jurors were thinking. egardless of whether they'd decided to quote that passage, their thought processes would've been the same.
The basis of your community's morality system may be different, but is not necessarily better; it's just starting from a different set of influences. They probably look at more liberal states with exactly the same horror as is being expressed here. And there's not really much that can be said in response to it beyond "but ours is right!"
Giving people the freedom to form juries carries exactly the same cost as freedom as speech: You can say whatever you like about whomever you like, but so can everyone you disagree with.
The problem isn't whether this man is guilty or not. This is a separate thing on its own.
Even though the majority of people in the US are religious, it doesn't mean I don't deserve a fair trail free of (someone else's) religious influence.
Thats why we all have constitutional rights. It gives us the freedom to all be different (within the boundaries of the present laws)
The jury should only consider the law. Not a religious text.
That being said... The jury system is a horrible way to go. A random group of people who are uneducated in the legal system have to decide what they 'think' or 'feel'
It has little to do with innocent until proven guilty.
That he was apparently guilty and found so: good.
That religious material was treated as though it had any jurisdiction in the law of a country that has a separation of church and state: bad.
That the bible was used to justify a death sentence from a group of people that most likely "pro-life": comedy gold.
Bet you $1 (my limit on non-sure-bets) that the jury using that rationale for the death penalty would be outraged at the use of Sharia courts for mediating disputes between Islamic people with a legal disagreement.
If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee,
Matthew 5:29
If the murderer killed on a sunday, (ie worked) are we looking at some kind of biblical double jeopardy?
What if he'd used pudding? Pudding seems safe enough...
No, just means you must do it caveman style with a wood or bone club. Then it will only be manslaughter.
I've always wondered if the whole "working oin the sabath" thing applies to priests...
Incedently, the captcha for this comment is
twins 2:20
I wonder what that verse has to say about murder...
Mark: Do you think people who work on the Sabbath be put to death?
I don't think you quite understand how a jury works. The state presents its case to teh jury. THe defendent presents their case. The judge then gives the jury instructions on the law, what the law says, what it means, etc. And then teh jury is locked in a room until they come to a unanimous decision.
The fact that twelve people pointed to a verse in teh bible and said "guilty" has got nothing to do with whether the law should be changed to say that people should be put to death for working on the sabbath.
@38 "Even though the majority of people in the US are religious, it doesn't mean I don't deserve a fair trail free of (someone else's) religious influence."
The only way to reduce the chances of religion's influence on juries is to reduce the influence of religion in the general population.
Jury members use the bible to decide cases all the time, they're just not explicit about it like they were here.
Those who are mentioning the sanctity of the jury room are on the right track, as far as common law (i.e. the UK and its former colonies) jurisprudence goes. Additionally, Texas law provides that
...[T]he jury... shall answer the following issue: Whether, taking into consideration all of the evidence, including the circumstances of the offense, the defendant's character and background, and the personal moral culpability of the defendant, there is a sufficient mitigating circumstance or circumstances to warrant that a sentence of life imprisonment without parole rather than a death sentence be imposed.
In Texas, a jury first determines guilt or innocence, then determines sentencing. While it's hard to tell from 6 sentnces exactly how things went down, I'm pretty sure that this would have gone down in the sentencing phase, meaning the only question was which of two penalties the guy was going to get.
Now, the fact that the death penalty is in play ANYWHERE is something I find personally distressing, I don't think anything special happened here (as though jurors don't routinely carry their religious beliefs into the jury room with them), and it's more than a bit dubious to try to paint this as a slippery slope situation.
Of course, if you just want to say the Bible is wildly inconsistent and a makes for a stupid basis on which to make almost any of one's life decisions, I'm completely with you.
highlyevolved said:
It seems like the other evidence was pretty compelling. I mean if the other evidence in the case showed that he shoot and beat a guy with his gun the bible passage sounds pretty irrelevant.
The problem is that the jury cited the Bible as their basis for conviction, not the Constitution or Common Law. The SC turned the case away because if they were to hear it they would end up passing a precedent for or against use of the Bible as a legal source, which as you can imagine, might cause a few problems.
If the SC ruled that local secular laws took precedent over Biblical laws, the fundies would loose their shit and start demanding their impeachment.
Likewise, it would make all kinds of problems for everyone else, as suddenly every law that contradicts the Bible could be challenged, including legalized divorce and the illegitimacy of slavery.
Why isn't the jury consulting Bob?
Ahem.
ATTENTION: The jury did NOT use the Bible as their basis for conviction. The defendant had already been found guilty. The Bible was the basis for sentencing, not for conviction.
ALSO: The Supreme Court did NOT refuse to hear the case because they think it's fine to base legal decisions on the Bible. They refused it on procedural grounds, because the appeal was not filed properly.
Post #39 (also from me) contains a link to the Court's actual statement.
There's so much misinformation and assumption going on in this discussion that most of what's been said is completely irrelelvant to the actual topic. I wish the folks at CBS News, and boingboing, would be a little more careful in how they present legal issues.
For those unfamiliar with the jury system, it is your right to be tried by a jury of your peers, and expected that those members of your community will use the community standards are part of their decision making process.
If he lived in an atheist community, they could consult Dawkins instead.
Don't be snarky.
I demand a jury of BB readers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENM7leFj6YU&feature=related
Isn't Saturday the seventh day?
#58, 100% agree.
And yes, Frauenfelder, it means you can be executed for working on Sunday. Excellent work. Hi-five. Great response.
Well, I've read (okay, okay, SKIMMED) the 5th Circuit's decision (the one the Supreme Court refused to reconsider). It looks like the court said the following:
1. WTF was up with the jury reading the bible to help them figure this out? They're not supposed to do that! It's okay if somebody just knows the thing and quotes it cuz what're you gonna do, but this was a fuck up.
2. Well, did that make up anyone's mind for them? We aren't completely sure, but they all said it didn't and the state court says the defendant didn't prove anything, and we can't see where they're definitely wrong, so we're going to let this one go.
It's pretty standard law school casebook stuff, and the sanctity of juries our system respects so much meant there was unlikely to be anyone crusading to overturn the jury's decision no matter what it was.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/06/06-70006-CV0.wpd.pdf
I've done some research on this case, and no, the jury did not say they based their decision on the bible passage. That doesn't mean they didn't, of course. The 5th Circuit opinion (what this appeal was from) said it wasn't clear whether the passage was even consulted before the verdict was handed down. Juries don't cite anything for their verdict/sentences anyhow, they just answer media and lawyers if they feel like it. They are supposed to stick to the jury instructions.
Just to clarify for other posters, only juries can hand down a death sentence, not a judge. This is a new development (last few years).
I think the main disturbing thing here is that we continue to place the burden of proof on the capital defendant to show that the verdict/sentence was based on something untoward, and any outside media is certainly untoward. I think a fairly low level of evidence should shift the burden to the state.
For what it's worth, I work in a ruby-red state and I can't imagine that any of the trial judges I know would have allowed this sentence to stand once they heard that jurors consulted a Bible during deliberations.
Wow, it seems like there's a bit of spin and overreaction going on here.
To me, this says they're not going to let a murderer off on a technicality, because that technicality produced a result consistent with the law.
Thanks #39 !!
As usual really READING (ok as #62 just SKIMMED it) the ruling instead of the hyped up press-report makes a world of difference.
Anyway, if they had filed the papers correctly, i don't think the Court would've overturned it. The jury found him guilty and that's that ... it doesn't really matter how they got there, just that they did without being coerced.
Well.. it is one nation under God.. screw the other religions. Sad times indeed.
Takuan - You already had a jury, and were found guilty. The sentence is being a BB reader.
Who beats anyone with the barrel of a gun? Thats what the metal plate on the buttstock is for.
Idiot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI
Given how strict rules of evidence tend to be, and how the judge can instruct jurors to ignore things that are sitting right in front of them, this does stand out a bit.
That's a pretty flimsy challenge. Ok, it's kind of the jury, but he did shoot and beat a guy to death.
well now Toxoniox, you can't do a proper pistol whipping with the butt, The League of Villains and Bad Guys would send you packing to The Brutal Prison Guard Association. You have to use the barrel so the front sight leaves your initials. Sheesh.
The real issue is that rather than follow the sentencing guidelines established by secular law, they consulted a non-authoritative source. So perhaps if they had followed state law he would've gotten life in the pen instead of the chair (or whatever they're using over there nowadays).
On the other hand it IS Texas, so once he got convicted of murder, odds are he'd have gotten the death penalty even if the jury flipped a coin
@41 Blueelm
Thanks for the clarification, and for calling me a pinhead. ;)
This terrible, terrible person took the life of another in a fit of anger: it's only responsible that we the state, after due and level-headed deliberation and consultation take his. It's just that simple.
(Minded).
Texas should just secede already. They are below average in income, gdp, educational achievement, etc. per capita. Plus they continue to embrace racism, fundamentalist religion and guns, and produce politicians that have done great harm. It would be a measurable benefit to the rest of the country.
This is overblown.
Would there be a problem if the jury cited a Lennon song or a gandhi quote? No. The bible is not being used as a book of law, but as a cultural reference.
move on.
perhaps Texas should partition internally first.
I haven't had time to read through all the comments, so I hope this has not been brought up yet, but I'd like to add that the book of Leviticus also spells out that death by stoning should be administered for those who touch the skin of a pig. And yet nothing is more important down heyah to most God fearing types than football... On Saturdays and Sundays no less. Yet the fundies maintain that there is no room for interpretation of the Word of Gawd. Kinda makes you go hmmmmm...
DGallardo@~80 and those enjoying bashing Texas: Please show your work, because living here in Austin, I can tell you we are on record as actually having one of the best educated workforces in the nation, and are hardly feeling the recession as of yet. Backwoods fucks are abound in this nation. We don't have a monopoly on them. We just have a lot more territory from which they can have sprung. Where do you live that is idiot free?
Less than five minutes research shows that there is a lot more to this story than the headline and copy of this post implies (labeling this post “misleading” would be being overly charitable). I seem to remember the bible saying something about bogging false witness, but I can’t remember what the punishment for that is…
re # 80's domicile,we can at least be sure that it isn't in Whacko,Texas amongst the Dravidians!Takuan:The butt end of a Lee Enfield has a very extensive brass facing capable of severe damage but that was back then.If defense wanted to get picky re iron.The barrel of modern rifles is made from high tensile steel annealed and tempered a far cry fom the iron in David's fair city.But all this is hardly the point "yer does the crime yer pays the price"and in Texas they make sure of it.
PHIKUS @84. I grew up in Texas, and yes, you're right, it has its good parts & good people, but I couldn't wait to leave, and even now, every time I visit I'm always glad to leave.
There's a cowboy strain of redneck pride and attitude that runs deep and through the culture. Backwoods fucks abound everywhere, indeed, but in Texas backwardness is celebrated, and idiots are worshiped.
Austin is certainly an exception in many regards, but even there, I still found it a little too redneck for my Mexican ass.
Now, there are also places that are more Mexican/Southwestern in culture, but they have always gotten the shit end of the stick, because they have the temerity to vote the "wrong" way, every time.
ah the old Lee-Enfield. Fired the .303 in my youth, bit of a wildebeest. I have to agree about the indiscriminate Texas bashing though. The morons aren't touched by it and the good Texans have their feelings hurt. Besides, George Fucking Bush was never a real Texan anyway.
was the defendant a christian?
Dunno. But his name is 'Khristian'.
Oh, Irony, I love you so.
Beating someone to death with a gun?
Bible based sentencing?
YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG.
Interesting how you can override all fundamental parts of the bible with a single obscure contradiction.
There's "Thou shall not kill." in the old testament and pretty much the entire New Testament about forgiveness.
#88 Takuan-let me hazard a wild guess.1954 U.K National Serviceman.Moi? '54 Queens Royal[west surreys], W.O.S.B.,then 1 Para.Two years of mind numbing boredom.Typical Brit make-do philosophy, arming their rapid deployment troops with vintage W.W.1 rifles.I got put on regimental orders for suggesting that were Arnhem to be repeated at that time, the result would be the same.The same blockheads,sub-standard weaponry and poorly prepared soldiers.
If they are Jews then yes, if they are Christians then only if they choose to follow the old laws - and if they do they have to apply all of them (according to JC). Otherwise Christians have the new testament and just the two commandments.
Funny aside: Most Christians are ignorant of this fact, and are happy to pull bits and pieces from the old testament to suit their purpose - but according to JC thats a no-no!
@ 53
Oh, how very droll. And no, no it doesn't. Have you, perchance, heard of the New Testament? It's quite big; world's largest religion founded on it and so forth. Jog on.
I missed the reference to the wildebeast.Either a tour of duty in Kenya "placating" the MauMau or safaris in the Serengeti?Do not tell me Northern Ontario, taking pot shots at piranahs!
Post #94 was directed to TAKUAN,this insomnia is really getting to me and I thought B.B was the answer
@92 - Funny aside: Pulling bits and pieces from the Bible to serve one's purposes isn't confined to Christians, apparently it's infected you too.
You mention that there are only two commandments given in the New Testament (but don't mention what those two commandments were). Looking at John 8, where a woman is going to be stoned for adultery and JC stops the crowd with his famous "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" comment. After the crowd disperses, he tells the woman to "Go and sin no more."
In other words, even though adultery isn't specifically forbidden in the New Testament, JC was still condemning it as sin.
This doesn't add up - he had a trial, he was found guilty, so the trial moved on to the sentencing phase, where death penalty vs. life sentence was decided. During those deliberations, someone looked at the bible... and what, that's his "Get out of jail free" card?
His guilt was decided without referring to the bible, and his complaint was:
The imposition of sentencing is subjective, not fact-based - guilt or innocence is to be based on facts. His guilt was apparently decided without referring to the good book.
What if the jurors referred to the book "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee in a trial about race relations or acusations of rape?
I understand the meaning of a vigerous defense, and I applaud his attorneys inventive use of this line of defense, but the attorneys must have known this wasn't going to go anywhere...
I can't find a specific link, but Ron White had a bit in one of his comedy specials ("You Can't Fix Stupid") where he discussed Texas law being changed to include an "Express Lane", where if your guilt is based on three or more eye witnesses, your appeals process is truncated and "you go to the head of the line" for punishment. How do you live in Texas and not know they take the death penalty seriously?
Mark @ 37:
Do you think people who work on the Sabbath be put to death?
With all due respect, that's a completely irrational retort which has already been answered by several posts prior to yours. Completely ignoring Bugs' very cogent points, you raise the specter of a non-analogous, inapplicable, and slightly hysterical slippery slope.
There is no U.S. law against work on the Sabbath, and no death penalty provision in any state for said action. Jury incompetence is always a serious concern when the stakes are high, but no jury is going to be able to put someone to death for actions legal or not-punishable-by-death in the States.
Religious law isn't being imposed in lieu of secular law here; jurors navigated the parameters of secular law with (inevitable) reference to their particular values.
I'm personally uncomfortable with (though not wholly opposed to) the death penalty. But I can't help but suspect that, had the jurors consulted Jesus' words on mercy, BB wouldn't have reported the case. At least not with the same outrage.
Me thinks thou dost read too much into it. It only means that the evidence of the trial holds up to the murder conviction, regardless of the Bible verse. The Supreme Court made no mention as to the validity of the verse or of its' impact of the jury decision, that the evidence of the act was worth the conviction.
But you might think twice about working on Sunday, or Saturday for you 7th Day Adventists!! ;-)
reply to #87 posted by DGallardo:
Good riddence, have a nice life in Arkansas or somewhere like that. Maybe California would fit you better, they have all kinds of free handouts for your mindset. Texans believe in working hard and caring for themselves, which I think is what rubs you wrong.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out of Texas!!!
An interesting fact I learned the other day is that trial by jury is not a function of the judicial system in the vast majority of countries worldwide. In fact, it is by and large only used in the Anglo-American legal tradition, and even then, many countries whose legal system derives from the British one abandoned jury trial during the 20th century (e.g. India) or never adopted it in the first place (e.g. Israel).
Countries typically choose to forgo trial by jury either because it is feared that juries are too susceptible to media influence, or because it is felt that laypeople are simply not competent enough to hand down reliable, well-considered verdicts. Even in many countries (e.g. Italy, Germany, Japan) where very serious crimes (murder, rape, etc.) are tried by jury, the decision is arrived at jointly by jurors and (typically) more than one judge, in order that there be a guaranteed competent element involved in both arriving at a verdict and sentencing.
Being English, and having grown up on a diet of US TV, I was a little surprised to learn that most countries do not use trial by jury. I haven't had a chance to do much more reading into it, nor to see if there is research about how it tends to affect verdicts or sentencing, but I certainly intend to.
Alexandre Van de Sande - Well put, thanks.
Juries bring their collective life experiences into the jury box, by design - the court case is not a vacuum. Guilt or innocence are to rely on fact, and only those facts presented in the trial.
If Rosie O'Donnell were to be involved in a court case, and she said that "fire doesn't melt steel", if no one refuted it - the jury would would have to accept that fire doesn't melt steel? I think not. The jury would be within it's charge to dismiss her rantings as, at best, "confused."
As an example, the famous physicist Richard Feynmann sat ont he panel reviewing the space shuttle Challenger explosion, and doubting the facts and testemony he was hearing, decided to run his own test with an "O" ring, a C clamp, and a glass of ice water. He quickly proved to himself and others on the panel that the resilliancy of the "O" ring was altered by temperature extremes, and demonstrated as much to the panel.
If that were a court trial and he were a juror, that would be a serious problem, but in the context of that panel it was a very elegant way to make his point to all on the panal.
As a follow-up to my previous post, here's why Feynmann joined the committee investigating the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger.
DGallardo@~87: Sorry to hear of your experiences here. I would be interested in knowing where you moved to that helped you to feel that you have escaped willful ignorance and bigotry. I feel much the same that you describe feeling about Texas in general about Houston. I have to go back there every year for the holidays and I feel I cannot escape soon enough.
One thing I feel compelled to point out, however, is that "backwardness is celebrated, and idiots are worshiped" in most of the deep South equally. Could you not say this about Georgia? Oklahoma? Mississippi? Arkansas? South Carolina? Having said this, I do concede that Texas has always had a little more racist attitude about Hispanics in general, but this is matched in the other states' racism in regards to Afro-Americans.
Texas has no monopoly on redneckitude, and these other states do not have Austin to offset it.
Capnk@~99: Why do you have to go and prove him right? I think it is your mindset that rubs him the wrong way. I know it had that effect on me, a native Texan.
@#14: The point is that they used a dictionary to get a definition that was wrong. Dictionaries frequently include several meanings of a word, for one. More importantly, in virtually all professions there are words that are, when seen in relevant contexts, defined in specific ways. Within that professional context, such as law, you need a legal dictionary. Psychology and engineering, for example, have completely different definitions of the word "stress". Don't use a general-context dictionary because you don't want to bother the judge by asking.
Anyway, this doesn't particularly bother me. The man was eligible for the death penalty, and the whole point of sentencing is taking into account mitigating factors. Citing a biblical reference gives you a nice quote, and you can find an appropriate one for most any verdict you want.
Some people likely need spiritual justification for sentencing someone to death. There, now you can do what you were trying to figure out a reason to do.
He should have just shot the guy. Nowhere in the Bible does it mention lead bullets.
NEUROLUX wrote:
As noted in the first line of the Boing Boing posting:
The majority Seventh-day Adventists don't work on Sabbath (which is Saturday, not Sunday). And there is no biblical foundation for the change of Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.
That said, I'm all for separation of church and state.