Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2009-11-12 15:32:26
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5872

The death sentence on a Texan man has been carried out despite claims jurors at his trial quoted the Bible during their deliberations.

Khristian Oliver was executed by lethal injection last night over the murder of a man whose home he was trying to burgle in 1997.

The 32-year-old, who took eight minutes to die, was "very calm" at his execution, having spoken to the family of his victim, 64-year-old Joe Collins, and his own parents.

Oliver, execution number 999.301 in the Texas department of criminal justice records, said he had prayed for the Collins family but that his execution would not bring closure. He told his parents he loved them.

Human rights groups had expressed deep concern at Oliver's impending execution, the 20th in Texas this year, after post-trial interviews showed jurors had consulted and quoted from the Bible in their deliberations.

Amnesty International UK said "serious questions" must be raised about the impartiality of jurors quoting scripture in reaching their decision.

Amnesty had learned from four jurors that several Bibles were present in the jury room, with passages highlighted and passed between them.

One juror even stood up to quote the text directly, saying: "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."
http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/world/a … 339137.htm
So do you think that they were out of line? Since a jury of peers is used to prosecute should juries be picked on religious lines? Did they miss the whole part of the bible about forgiveness or did they forget the founder of Christianity was executed himself?

This is disturbing, to think that these people used the bible to make judgments like that, I mean hell that book has some crazy shit in it.

On asidenote, I like Texas to a point, low taxes and guns are on the other hand they're full of religious lunatics and Flaming_Maniac is lurking somewhere in that state, Florida sounds like a better place to live.
2009-11-12 15:42:15
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7022|Salt Lake City

The problem with this is that they like to pick and choose what parts of the Bible justice to apply.  If this guy hadn't killed some one and was only convicted of burglary, would they have cut off his hand(s)?
2009-11-12 15:44:25
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6907|London, England
Yeah, don't see the need to start quoting Bible verses. Sounds extreme and will probably land them in some hot water.
2009-11-12 15:44:28
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

So do you think that they were out of line? Since a jury of peers is used to prosecute should juries be picked on religious lines? Did they miss the whole part of the bible about forgiveness or did they forget the founder of Christianity was executed himself?

This is disturbing, to think that these people used the bible to make judgments like that, I mean hell that book has some crazy shit in it.

On asidenote, I like Texas to a point, low taxes and guns are on the other hand they're full of religious lunatics and Flaming_Maniac is lurking somewhere in that state, Florida sounds like a better place to live.
They were just using the bible to reinforce what they already felt on the topic. If they didn't want to send the guy to the chair they would've found other passages that backed up what they believed. The book didn't make their decision for them but it eased their conscience. Make sense?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-11-12 15:46:30
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85
LOL justice system.

'course it's hard to take such a biased article at face value. Like for instance, what about his appeals? There is no way there weren't any appeals at all...on those grounds or others. Were they quoting the Bible too?
2009-11-12 16:02:40
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6281|Truthistan
That article had one very very interesting statistic

"Since 1976 the US has executed 1,175 people, while 138 people have been exonerated while on death row since 1973. "

That's an exoneration rate greater than 10%. Now that is unbelievable. That 10% are only the ones that were exonerated so its probably higher.

So much for the old saying better to let 10 guilty men go free than convict one innocent man. Once again Texas has it ass backwards where it appears to be kill'm all and let god sort it out.

Bibles in the jury room, now that's stupid, uhhhh what happened to the seperation of church and state. Juries are not even allowed to consult law books and yet they can refer back to that old testament crap. I wonder how fast someone would have gotten kicked off the jury if they started to quote he who is without sin cast the first stone in reference to executing a person. I bet then there would have been holy hell.
2009-11-13 04:11:51
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6697|'Murka

Obviously it didn't cause an appealable issue, did it? He was convicted based on evidence, not based on Bible passages, people.

The fact that there were Bibles present in the jury room at his initial trial has fuckall to do with the evidence presented at trial and at his numerous required appeals.

As for exoneration for death row inmates? That doesn't mean that they are innocent, Diesel (that's like saying OJ was innocent, rather than "not guilty"). It simply means that 138 of the tens of thousands who have been on death row since 1976 -- not just the 1175 executed since 1976 -- have been released for some reason. Either back into general population (ie off death row) or released entirely. That could be due to appeal, or it could be due to the advent of DNA evidence truly exonerating them--a much smaller percentage than 10%. Likely a much smaller percentage than even 1%.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-11-13 04:15:10
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6907|London, England

FEOS wrote:

Obviously it didn't cause an appealable issue, did it? He was convicted based on evidence, not based on Bible passages, people.

The fact that there were Bibles present in the jury room at his initial trial has fuckall to do with the evidence presented at trial and at his numerous required appeals.
I think the main cause for concern is the fact that they were quoting all this religious shit at all, in a courtroom, after being sentenced. It's got nothing to do with the actual trial itself in terms of whether he was guilty or not. It raises issues, especially in a country which prides itself on its constitution and all that shit.

If you want, how would you feel if that story replaced the word Bible with Koran?

Exactly.

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-11-13 04:16:46)

2009-11-13 04:18:00
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX
The fact that there were Bibles present in the jury room at his initial trial has fuckall to do with the evidence presented at trial and at his numerous required appeals.
Its relevant since the jury are supposed to consider the laws of the land and the evidence presented in the trial, nothing more - at least in developed countries.
Not some mumbo-jumbo written by 2,000 years ago, translated three times and re-written by men in dresses.

Maybe a copy of L Ron Hubbards ravings would have helped, they could have consulted their inner thetan on whether to find him guilty or put him on the spaceship.
Fuck Israel
2009-11-13 05:34:16
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

Macbeth wrote:

The death sentence on a Texan man has been carried out despite claims jurors at his trial quoted the Bible during their deliberations.

Khristian Oliver was executed by lethal injection last night over the murder of a man whose home he was trying to burgle in 1997.

The 32-year-old, who took eight minutes to die, was "very calm" at his execution, having spoken to the family of his victim, 64-year-old Joe Collins, and his own parents.

Oliver, execution number 999.301 in the Texas department of criminal justice records, said he had prayed for the Collins family but that his execution would not bring closure. He told his parents he loved them.

Human rights groups had expressed deep concern at Oliver's impending execution, the 20th in Texas this year, after post-trial interviews showed jurors had consulted and quoted from the Bible in their deliberations.

Amnesty International UK said "serious questions" must be raised about the impartiality of jurors quoting scripture in reaching their decision.

Amnesty had learned from four jurors that several Bibles were present in the jury room, with passages highlighted and passed between them.

One juror even stood up to quote the text directly, saying: "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."
http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/world/a … 339137.htm
So do you think that they were out of line? Since a jury of peers is used to prosecute should juries be picked on religious lines? Did they miss the whole part of the bible about forgiveness or did they forget the founder of Christianity was executed himself?

This is disturbing, to think that these people used the bible to make judgments like that, I mean hell that book has some crazy shit in it.

On asidenote, I like Texas to a point, low taxes and guns are on the other hand they're full of religious lunatics and Flaming_Maniac is lurking somewhere in that state, Florida sounds like a better place to live.
I don't care their reasoning, was he guilty of this yes or no? He was. or they would not be deliberating a sentence. execute him
2009-11-13 05:46:56
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7062|Moscow, Russia

Mekstizzle wrote:

I think the main cause for concern is the fact that they were quoting all this religious shit at all, in a courtroom, after being sentenced. It's got nothing to do with the actual trial itself in terms of whether he was guilty or not. It raises issues, especially in a country which prides itself on its constitution and all that shit.

If you want, how would you feel if that story replaced the word Bible with Koran?

Exactly.
^this. religion has no place in a court of justice, regardless of circumstances.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2009-11-13 05:47:34
jord
Member
+2,382|6965|The North, beyond the wall.

Shahter wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

I think the main cause for concern is the fact that they were quoting all this religious shit at all, in a courtroom, after being sentenced. It's got nothing to do with the actual trial itself in terms of whether he was guilty or not. It raises issues, especially in a country which prides itself on its constitution and all that shit.

If you want, how would you feel if that story replaced the word Bible with Koran?

Exactly.
^this. religion has no place in a court of justice, regardless of circumstances.
I agree with this guy, for once.
2009-11-13 06:11:05
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6936

Mekstizzle wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Obviously it didn't cause an appealable issue, did it? He was convicted based on evidence, not based on Bible passages, people.

The fact that there were Bibles present in the jury room at his initial trial has fuckall to do with the evidence presented at trial and at his numerous required appeals.
I think the main cause for concern is the fact that they were quoting all this religious shit at all, in a courtroom, after being sentenced. It's got nothing to do with the actual trial itself in terms of whether he was guilty or not. It raises issues, especially in a country which prides itself on its constitution and all that shit.

If you want, how would you feel if that story replaced the word Bible with Koran?

Exactly.
They'd freak the fuck out. Lowing would go on for 15 pages about appeasement.
2009-11-13 06:29:22
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6829|Texas - Bigger than France
Here's a link to the attorney general's news release, stating what the did.  They also presented evidence of other crimes he was involved with.

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=3142

I would think this will be appealed, based on the fact the jury was influenced during sentencing.
2009-11-15 09:11:10
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6733|Chicago, IL

Pug wrote:

Here's a link to the attorney general's news release, stating what the did.  They also presented evidence of other crimes he was involved with.

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=3142

I would think this will be appealed, based on the fact the jury was influenced during sentencing.
death penalty carries an automatic appeal
2009-11-16 04:08:38
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6697|'Murka

Mekstizzle wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Obviously it didn't cause an appealable issue, did it? He was convicted based on evidence, not based on Bible passages, people.

The fact that there were Bibles present in the jury room at his initial trial has fuckall to do with the evidence presented at trial and at his numerous required appeals.
I think the main cause for concern is the fact that they were quoting all this religious shit at all, in a courtroom, after being sentenced. It's got nothing to do with the actual trial itself in terms of whether he was guilty or not. It raises issues, especially in a country which prides itself on its constitution and all that shit.

If you want, how would you feel if that story replaced the word Bible with Koran?

Exactly.
Did it have anything to do with the law that was used to convict or sentence?

No.

Therefore, I couldn't give two shits.

Exactly.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-11-16 04:24:24
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6907|London, England

FEOS wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Obviously it didn't cause an appealable issue, did it? He was convicted based on evidence, not based on Bible passages, people.

The fact that there were Bibles present in the jury room at his initial trial has fuckall to do with the evidence presented at trial and at his numerous required appeals.
I think the main cause for concern is the fact that they were quoting all this religious shit at all, in a courtroom, after being sentenced. It's got nothing to do with the actual trial itself in terms of whether he was guilty or not. It raises issues, especially in a country which prides itself on its constitution and all that shit.

If you want, how would you feel if that story replaced the word Bible with Koran?

Exactly.
Did it have anything to do with the law that was used to convict or sentence?

No.

Therefore, I couldn't give two shits.
Well it's a pretty clear case about the usual separation of religion and state, depends on how much you care about shit like that, but then again it also depends on whether it's your religion or not your religion. Basically, if people say they wouldn't give a shit if it said Koran instead of Bible, well ok lol.
2009-11-16 04:30:11
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7096|Nårvei

I would be very concerned if I thought the jury was influenced by the bible in their decision ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2009-11-16 05:04:08
jsnipy
...
+3,277|6809|...

It's funny how some "devout" Christians seem to pick and choose from the old testament when it suits their needs, rather than actually following Christ's teachings in the new testament.

But I agree, I would uneasy if these types were deciding my fate.
2009-11-16 16:11:16
mcgid1
Meh...
+129|7003|Austin, TX/San Antonio, TX
On the one hand, it sounds like the jury had already decided his fate and were just trying to ease their own mental/emotional burden.  On the other hand, it could be argued that by easing that burden, they were more likely to vote for the death penalty.  Ultimately, I'm not quite sure where I stand on this.

One other thing that might be considered, Texas does not have life in prison without the possibility of parole, so if a jury wants to keep a murderer off the streets for good, the only option is the death penalty.
2009-11-17 03:33:13
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6697|'Murka

Mekstizzle wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:


I think the main cause for concern is the fact that they were quoting all this religious shit at all, in a courtroom, after being sentenced. It's got nothing to do with the actual trial itself in terms of whether he was guilty or not. It raises issues, especially in a country which prides itself on its constitution and all that shit.

If you want, how would you feel if that story replaced the word Bible with Koran?

Exactly.
Did it have anything to do with the law that was used to convict or sentence?

No.

Therefore, I couldn't give two shits.
Well it's a pretty clear case about the usual separation of religion and state, depends on how much you care about shit like that, but then again it also depends on whether it's your religion or not your religion. Basically, if people say they wouldn't give a shit if it said Koran instead of Bible, well ok lol.
It's not an issue of separation of church and state. The Bible (or the Qur'an) was not used in either conviction or sentencing. Therefore, not an issue. If it were, it would be an issue. Poor taste does not equate to a violation of statute.

And I don't care if you don't believe me about the Qur'an vs. the Bible. I care less about whether you believe that than I do about whether they used readings from either of those books when reading the sentence given.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-11-17 04:59:09
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7096|Nårvei

Did you participate in the jury FEOS?

How can you know that the jury didn't confer with the bible before they found him guilty?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2009-11-17 05:55:06
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

The Bible (or the Qur'an) was not used in either conviction or sentencing.
Human rights groups had expressed deep concern at Oliver's impending execution, the 20th in Texas this year, after post-trial interviews showed jurors had consulted and quoted from the Bible in their deliberations.
I'd be very concerned if a jury were looking things up in the bible during deliberations.
For a start I'd want to know exactly what they'd quoted.

Seems like a blatant mistrial.
Fuck Israel
2009-11-18 03:30:53
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6697|'Murka

Varegg wrote:

Did you participate in the jury FEOS?
No, I didn't.

Varegg wrote:

How can you know that the jury didn't confer with the bible before they found him guilty?
I didn't say anything about conferring with the bible. They are free to do that.

Conviction and sentencing aren't based on what's in the bible. They are based on evidence presented and sentencing guidelines--neither of which are in scripture, as far as I can tell.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Seems like a blatant mistrial.
That's because you are a raving, militant atheist and not a lawyer.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mistrial
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-11-18 03:33:30
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7053|UK
god damn muslims aye Lowing

o wait...

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard