Texas man faces execution after jurors consult Bible to decide fate

[curlycrouton]

Here's my philosophy on murder: "An eye for an eye." If you take a life for anything other than self-defense, yours should be taken as well.

“Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule.” - Gautama Siddharta (better known as Buddha).

Or, to use your terminology, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" (Gandhi).

Basically, evil begets evil. What good can come from taking another man's life? Yes, it may be a deterrent in a small number of cases, but that doesn't compensate for the taking of another man's life.

 

[MajoraPersona]

The link to the source I got this from is here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6338320/Texas-man-faces-execution-after-jurors-consult-Bible-to-decide-fate.html

In short, Kristian Oliver burgled a home and killed its owner with the owner's own rifle (beat to death).

When it was his trial just recently, some jurors had copies of the bible with them, using which they controlled his fate.
One of the bible passages used was "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."

I believe this is highly unconstitutional, and could be Texas just trying to break away from the USA.

What do you think about this?

EDIT: I do also think he should have been sentenced to death, but isn't using the bible as evidence sort of illegal?
It's like if I looked upon Harry Potter books when deciding if someone should die...

Well, unlike the Bible, Harry Potter ends with a giant war in which every...

one...

dies...

OH MY GOD THEY'RE THE SAME THING!

SNAPE KILLED MOSES!@

 

[ace_of_something]

Weird. That's an oddly specific passage.

I think it's a bit silly that they could SNEAK A BOOK OR TWO INTO THE DELIBERATION ROOM!

Does this not concern anyone? What's to say they aren't sneaking in newspapers and palmpres? The whole point of the jury is being tightly controled. What if they had an article on the trial stuffed between the pages. My friend is a baliff and I know they don't let ANYTHING in with the jury even their phones. (too many have internet access)

 

[GoldenCondor]

Weird. That's an oddly specific passage.

I think it's a bit silly that they could SNEAK A BOOK OR TWO INTO THE DELIBERATION ROOM!

Does this not concern anyone? What's to say they aren't sneaking in newspapers and palmpres? The whole point of the jury is being tightly controled. What if they had an article on the trial stuffed between the pages. My friend is a baliff and I know they don't let ANYTHING in with the jury even their phones. (too many have internet access)

Dude I never even considered the fact they aren't allowed to have books! That's so hilarious, and makes me even more confused on this whole situation.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

Great job Texas, you just released a killer because you have a hard-on for the Bible.

No, they're executing him.

 

[bjj hero]

Who cares if the Bible was used (this is coming from an Atheist)? The guy deserves it anyway does he not?

Have you read the bible? Read these parts: http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html
It's fucking insane.

That is triple pant shitting twisted. People take this as fact from the mouth of god?

It doesn't surprise me. You need to justify, at least to yourself, any decision you make. If 2000 year old literature makes you comfortable with having someone killed then more fool you. At least have the balls to own your decision instead of saying "god says so".

I love how the bible treats women on their periods like the monkey from outbreak.

 

[Necrofudge]

This happend in 1999. A decade ago. People were more religious back then.

Its Texas. There are still people there who want Texas to teach creationism in the schools. I doubt they've done very much to push away from the religious nonsense.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

If the jury reveals what happened to influence their decision, that's illegal, isn't it? How do we know what happened in the fury's decision if they're not allowed to tell? Why aren't they being arrested.

Oh, and I think the initial issue is ridiculous, the Bible should never be a deciding factor in anything, especially not life and death.

 

[DrDeath3191]

This is hardly news. This happened a decade ago. Besides, from what I hear the guy was pretty much toast to start.

Also, being a Texan myself, I'd appreciate if you would lay off the hate of my state.

 

[manaman]

I am glad level heads are prevailing.

Wait I only saw a couple of those.

The jury decides guilt. They also decide if the death penalty applies. Unlike what the article says ultimate decision on sentencing rests with the judge. They don't even really decide if the death penalty applies, but there have been juries in the past where the defense made a last ditch effort to appeal to them not for release but to convict of a lesser degree of the offense so that the crime was not eligible for the death penalty.

The jurors do not, and I really need to stress this not have the power to send a man to his death. They have the power to allow the judge to send a man to his death.

Edit: This is only news, and only spun this way becasue of two reasons:

Liberals hate the death penalty, while I don't really care if should be abolished I don't agree with most of the people that support it and the lies they tell themselves and others about it.

The guy got a new lawyer as it comes time to appeal, it is probably time to make a Habeas Corpus Appeal.

That's far beyond corrupt. But he should still be executed for his crime whether or not the Bible says so.

Well, he was probably going to be sentenced to death anyway, he is a murderer, even if he didnt plan it. Would it have been any different if some of the Jurors just remembered that quote from the bible?

The US Constitution specifically calls for separation of Church and State. Usage of the Bible to determine the man's fate voids the trial by violating the Constitution. I'm not saying that the man doesn't deserve the death penalty, but its important that the government doesn't just act as if its ok for the Bible to be consulted in judicial matters.

Were I on the jury team, I would adminish the people for relying on a contradictory piece of clap-trap...

Then suggest he is executed anyway.

Weird. That's an oddly specific passage.

I think it's a bit silly that they could SNEAK A BOOK OR TWO INTO THE DELIBERATION ROOM!

Does this not concern anyone? What's to say they aren't sneaking in newspapers and palmpres? The whole point of the jury is being tightly controled. What if they had an article on the trial stuffed between the pages. My friend is a baliff and I know they don't let ANYTHING in with the jury even their phones. (too many have internet access)

Sorry to quote you all, but....


Juries do not decide sentences

Edit: Oh damnit. I give up, fine everyone don't bother looking up how sentencing in the US works. Just keep believing all the drivel you read.

 

[ender214]

The US Constitution specifically calls for separation of Church and State. Usage of the Bible to determine the man's fate voids the trial by violating the Constitution. I'm not saying that the man doesn't deserve the death penalty, but its important that the government doesn't just act as if its ok for the Bible to be consulted in judicial matters.

 

[Sightless Wisdom]

That's far beyond corrupt. But he should still be executed for his crime whether or not the Bible says so.

 

[whaleswiththumbs]

Well, he was probably going to be sentenced to death anyway, he is a murderer, even if he didnt plan it. Would it have been any different if some of the Jurors just remembered that quote from the bible?

 

[Venatio]

This is indeed higly unconstitutional. We are defended from religious power by its seperation from the state. Still, a direct connection cant be made official despite the fact that they had the book in their hands simply because the argument can be made that any jury can be wrong because of their perceived beliefs.

...and could be Texas just trying to break away from the USA.

What do you think about this?

I think that if Texas citizens dared attempt succession they would be labeled insurgents and brought back into the Union. I would personally join the National Guard and go over and kick their ass. You dont exit the Union, ever - we made that clear in the Civil War.

 

[imburke]

who cares what you believe, the bible has NO PLACE in the courtoom anymore (flame shields up)
despite what you beleive, it may not be what the person on trial, judge, or jury believes. for example, if you were in the middle east, and by accident had another apple in your bag you bought 5, but ended up with 6, they would deem this as stealing and youwould have your hand cut off. youd think " hey wait, i dont believe in that, ill pay a fine or go to jail for a while, isnt cutting off my hand a little extreme"? we shouldnt be forcing our beliefs on someone else, the law however, is a different story, no one belives the law, it just is, commit a crime face the penalty, this guy does deserve death, im a libertarian, and i also belive in the death penalty, but he deserves it because of the theft, break and enter, and homicide he commited, because it was illegal, not because it was against god.

 

[Bob the Average]

The link to the source I got this from is here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6338320/Texas-man-faces-execution-after-jurors-consult-Bible-to-decide-fate.html

In short, Kristian Oliver burgled a home and killed its owner with the owner's own rifle (beat to death).

When it was his trial just recently, some jurors had copies of the bible with them, using which they controlled his fate.
One of the bible passages used was "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."

I believe this is highly unconstitutional, and could be Texas just trying to break away from the USA.

What do you think about this?

EDIT: I do also think he should have been sentenced to death, but isn't using the bible as evidence sort of illegal?
It's like if I looked upon Harry Potter books when deciding if someone should die...

They aren't using the bible as evidence but as a moral guide the bible didn't was he beat the home owner to death, just that those who do should be put to death.

 

[Miles Tormani]

I want to point two things out.

1. According to the US Constitution, there is a separation of Church and State. It's supposed to be one of the founding principles. The use of the Bible, Koran, etc. for legal reasons, including determination of guilt, or issuing a sentence on the accused, is therefore unconstitutional. This goes way above just "illegal." EDIT for clarity: Any law that directly violates the Constitution is to be repealed. Not that the American government actually goes by what they should do anymore. ~~

2. "Thou shall not kill." Even if you were going by scripture to determine the sentence, how about going by the main part as opposed to something written by Leviticus that pretty much boils down to "kill anyone who is not 'proper'"?

Mind you, I'd rather see either a death or life sentence for a murder case, but citing the Bible to come to that conclusion, especially something that contradicts the Ten Commandments, is failsauce.

Further EDIT: Also, before someone jumps on me, yes, I know, the jurors do not determine the sentence. It doesn't change that religion was brought in where it shouldn't be brought in.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

I don't think you should take any judicial decisions that Texas makes very seriously. They also acquitted a group that tried to forcibly 'exorcise' a young girl, resulting in bodily injury and a suicide attempt for the girl, saying that they were 'exercising their freedom of religion.'

EDIT: Again for the Bible, the OT is a *horrific* point of reference for anything justice related. You're supposed to kill people who cheat on their spouses, kill children who talk back to parents, kill people who eat shellfish or wear boxers with elastic waistbands...the list goes on.