BF2S Forums Execution for man condemned by 'bible jury'

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

He can only be convicted of what he is charged with.

Obviously, but if the jury choose to use the bible definition of murder instead of the legal one then he could have been misconvicted.

And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

We can sit here and make up hypothetical shit all day. Maybe we can hypothesize that the flying spaghetti monster flew into the court room and spoke to everyone, obviating the Bible beforehand...that theory has as much validity as yours.

The point that has been made (repeatedly) that you have chosen to ignore (repeatedly) due to your militant atheistic views is that the jury could not have chosen to use the Bible's definition of murder instead of the legal one. The Bible doesn't have a definition of First Degree Murder or any other type.

The charges came from the law, not the Bible.

The sentencing came from the law, not the Bible.

Period. End of story. End of issue. It was a non-issue to begin with. It's a non-issue now.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Seems you facepalmed as you misunderstood.

No. I didn't.

There's nothing to misunderstand--unless you count you making shit up as misunderstanding things.

Dilbert_X wrote:

It's irrelevant to the law. It could not have impacted conviction or sentencing.

It clearly did, since the jurors were reading out bits of hit.

You are confusing correlation with causation.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And if its irrelevant what exactly is a copy of the bible doing in the jury room?
Juries in the UK aren't usually allowed anything but their own notes and any documents they request from the Judge.

If it's irrelevant, why does it matter if a copy is there?

Don't know what the judge's instructions were to the jury. He/she may have allowed personal reading materials. It's a case-by-case thing.

Varegg wrote:

I never made a point out of the bible being present in the jury room, I said I expressed concernes about the jury reciting religious texts in the courtroom, makes me think of other religious nutjobs tbh ...

And don't act stupid FEOS, you should know me enough to not draw conclusions about me preventing people from their civil duty because of religion or culture ... that's far from what we are discussing ...

I'm certainly not arguing against that at all, but like I said earlier, if the bible is brought into the panel's deliberation chamber in the form of a book or within someone's head...then it is a failure of the lawyers and judge involved.  I don't make a distinction on the timing. 

But I do know there wasn't a mistrial.  We don't know enough to say more than what you've stated aka "man that would suck if...", so I'm not quite getting why this is being argued.  If the judge blew the call, then it'll be overturned on appeal.  If the public doesn't like the judges actions, they won't get re-elected.

Dilbert_X wrote:

This is not related to the jury selection process but the deliberation process.
But if a juror pulled out a copy of 'Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire' and started quoting stuff from it during the deliberations would you not be at all concerned?
What if it were the Koran.
"Hmm it says here if he doesn't have a full beard he is unworthy. We should convict him of murder so Allah can judge him after he's been executed"?

I don't know if the verdict was correct or the punishment appropriate, on this information he should have been retried.

The jury selection process is supposed to keep the extremes out of the panel - so it's a fairly representative sample of the population.  The deliberation process is also laid out by the law.

Like I said, there wasn't a mistrial, but there's an automatic appeal.  And this will all come up again.  Either you believe there wasn't enough interference for a mistrial or there was.  I usually believe the system is functioning and works.

For one - I'd be surprised if the bible was used to argue the guy should be put to death.  Yet he was given the death penalty.  Did the bible work as intended in this situation?

Any other literary works was not present or at least mentioned as present or recited from so don't try that hypothetical shit on me ... and that the bible was present and had no bearing on the conviction or sentencing or the exact opposite will only be speculations from both of us ...

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And what I said was that their religious views would have been their religious views regardless of whether a Bible was in the room or not.

If they bring their religious views into the jury room, as they did, its a mistrial, bible or not. Its supposed to be on the facts and the law, not what Gog may or may not have said to Magog 2,000 years ago.

You can't prevent people from bringing their religious views into the courtroom, otherwise, you are discriminating against people who have religious views, violating the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Dilbert_X wrote:

So you would discriminate against people because of their religious beliefs? Prevent them from participating in their civil duties because you disagree with their belief system?

If they turned up wearing a white pointy hat and riding a white stallion, or in full burqa and carrying a koran you bet I'd want them booted off the jury if I were being tried - which no doubt I will be someday.

Extremist fruitloops shouldn't be on juries.

Extremists sit on juries every day, in every country. If you ever sit on a jury, I guarantee there will be at least one extremist on THAT jury.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You can't prevent people from bringing their religious views into the courtroom, otherwise, you are discriminating against people who have religious views, violating the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Not sure what US law is like but in the rest of the world jurors are instructed to try cases on the evidence and the law. If they start bringing extraneous stuff in, what they saw on TV, what they read in a book, the newspapers, what their mum told them -> Its a mistrial.

You can't prevent people from bringing in their life experience, Dilbert.

People aren't fucking automatons that get wiped/rebooted prior to serving on a jury. All that stuff isn't "extraneous". It's who they are.

The cases are tried on the evidence and the law...just as I said ad nauseum before. Just as this case was tried. The fact that someone had read a Bible didn't change that one iota.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You can't prevent people from bringing in their life experience, Dilbert.

But if they start spouting nutballery you have a retrial.

They can spout whatever they want, so long as they follow the rules laid down by the judge.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The fact that someone had read a Bible didn't change that one iota.

Of course not, its that they read some fruity out bits, presumably to influence other jurors, thats the problem.

How very tolerant and not at all presumptuous of you.

Dilbert_X wrote:

They can spout whatever they want, so long as they follow the rules laid down by the judge.

If a juror had stood up and said 'I think he should get death because he's black' pretty sure there would have been a mistrial.
Instead he reads out some lunacy from the bible and its all good.

Louise was right, stay out of Texas.

Now you're just talking nonsense. You have no idea what was said or the context in which it was said. You just have a problem because a Christian read a passage from the Bible.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Hmm
The juror basically said 'He should get death because the bible says so', whereas if he'd said 'He should get death because he's black' there would most definitely have been a problem.

You get that from one--very short--story in a British paper. About a court case that happened in Texas. The case happened years ago. And was mandatorily appealed. And held up on that appeal.

Where exactly is the problem again?

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'd have had just as much of a problem if he'd read out something from the Koran, as no doubt you would have.

And if there had been a problem, that problem would've surfaced during the mandatory appeals process, as well.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Say the Fort Hood shooter had a couple of muslims on the jury, and they declined to find him guilty because the Koran says smiting infidels is a 'good thing' what then eh? Let him off or declare a mistrial?

I'm going to assume you mean "not guilty"? I guess that depends on whether they buy into literary or chronographic abrogation in the Qu'ran, doesn't it?

If he's tried by a jury of his peers and found not guilty in a court of law, that's what he is. Just like OJ. Doesn't mean he's innocent. It means he's not guilty.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Or if the guy had read out a bit about turning the other cheek and loving thy neighbour and they let a murderer onto the streets. What then?

Let's turn those tables, then, shall we? What if the passage read from the Bible had led to a sentence of life imprisonment instead of the death sentence (turn the other cheek, mercy, etc)? Would you be squawking like a constipated duck about it then?

Its ridiculous to imply that the jurors decision was in some way unfair because of their use of bibles in their deliberations. Part of religion is applying it across your life, and if they feel that they should apply their faith in their deliberations all the better for them. So the problem is that they used Bibles? Definitely going to run into religious freedom issues there. Saying that they are forcing their faith upon others is also ridiculous, thats like saying Muslims cant wear a burka in public because its forcing their faith on others (and just imagine what an uproar that would cause). I dont even know where to start with this, the argument is so invalid on so many levels.

Also, the whole point of a jury is a fair trial, not a trial by people who share your point of view.

Last edited by h4hagen (2009-12-01 18:36:33)

What exactly about this is news? So people are using religion selectively to benefit their own personal desire, gain and perspective. It's been done for thousands of years. And it's Texas. I mean, c'mon. It's Texas.

h4hagen wrote:

Its ridiculous to imply that the jurors decision was in some way unfair because of their use of bibles in their deliberations. Part of religion is applying it across your life, and if they feel that they should apply their faith in their deliberations all the better for them. So the problem is that they used Bibles? Definitely going to run into religious freedom issues there. Saying that they are forcing their faith upon others is also ridiculous, thats like saying Muslims cant wear a burka in public because its forcing their faith on others (and just imagine what an uproar that would cause). I dont even know where to start with this, the argument is so invalid on so many levels.

Also, the whole point of a jury is a fair trial, not a trial by people who share your point of view.

A jury consists of regular people and people is known to come in all possible varieties ...

If you read through the thread we never claimed they forced their faith on anyone, we expressed concernes that they resited from the bible in the courtroom and that their faith maybe did influence their duty as objective jurors ...

h4hagen wrote:

I dont even know where to start with this, the argument is so invalid on so many levels.

Maybe comment on the statements we made and not what you think we implied ...

Dilbert_X wrote:

As long as it was actually proven, according to the evidence presented at the trial and the law as set out by the judge that he was a murderer, the rest is just icing on the cake.

Fixed.

Which was done, btw.

Yet somehow, you think because someone read a Bible, it obviates that.