Texas man faces execution after jurors consult Bible to decide fate

[Kiju]

Well, I guess Texas just takes the phrase 'In God We Trust', more seriously.

Myself...I'd just say 'Why the hell do you need a Bible to see this guy is a murderer, and should be put to death?'. I mean seriously, do they need Biblical excuses to make an execution?

 

[crepesack]

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

Were you paying attention at all?

He was sentenced to death, he wasn't released.

It's the law here in Texas anyway, to be put to death for murdering another human being. It's the jury's job to come to a consensus about whether the defendant is guilty or not.

Just because the jurors took solace in the bible justifying their decision, doesn't mean they drew their reasoning from the bible. I'm also quite certain that jurors do not create the sentence, the judge does, but that part I'm not 100% on.

but he will be released if this gets on the agenda of amnesty... They will likely go to either the supreme court or to the congress for a hearing about this. He'll probably gets away free. As george said ''Mind my words''

wrong that isn't how it works,
1. he applies for appeal
2. IF the supreme court sees his petition they make a ruling
3. They may or may not overturn the case based on his punishment, i am assuming he was indeed found guilty and that is irrefutable.
4. they have a retrial and is resentenced. He will get the death penalty again at the cost of millions of more dollars.
5. a legal precedent is set banning religious influence in the jury room
or the case isn't reviewed and he is executed on the given date.

and secondly congress CANNOT intervene in the court system as per the constitution, i think it's article 2. so he would never go to congress, he would appeal to the state supreme then the federal supreme court.

what people are failing to realize is that he was probably found guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence, then a punishment was issued based on the bible, so uhm..yah. so i'm not exactly sure there was any constitutional fault in this.

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

Eye for an Eye an such.


Also, to all "Eye for an Eye leaves the whole world blind" fucks, it doesn't if people didn't do bad things inherently. Fucking idiots.

 

[Double A]

That's... odd to say the least... but hey, it's Texas.

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

That's when he did the killing. The death sentence he received was just recently (he dies November 5).

HOLY SHIT A DEATH SENTENCE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN 5 YEARS ITS A SIGN OF THE APOCALYPSE!!!!!

 

[dubious_wolf]

XD ahahaha oh you, so uneducated. where in the constitution does it say "separation of church and state"? point it out to me and then try this argument until then you have no backing.
I'm texan as well and I would appreciate it if everyone would lay off the hate on my state!

Then stop doing such laughably hatable things. Like what I mentioned earlier with the exorcism.

what about exorcism?

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Even if the person in question deserves to die, that in no way means you should "give him" that death by consulting a book which has been proven to be incredibly cruel and full of shit.

If you consult the Bible whenever you need to apply the law, then I demand the Lord of the Rings books be consulted whenever someone is raped.

If Texas wants out of the Union just tell them to hurry the fuck up.

 

[GoldenCondor]

XD ahahaha oh you, so uneducated. where in the constitution does it say "separation of church and state"? point it out to me and then try this argument until then you have no backing.
I'm texan as well and I would appreciate it if everyone would lay off the hate on my state!

Then stop doing such laughably hatable things. Like what I mentioned earlier with the exorcism.

what about exorcism?

Separation of Church and State evidence (thank you, wikipedia.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

Texas Exorcism case, thanks google.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/1156716.html

 

[crepesack]

Even if the person in question deserves to die, that in no way means you should "give him" that death by consulting a book which has been proven to be incredibly cruel and full of shit.

If you consult the Bible whenever you need to apply the law, then I demand the Lord of the Rings books be consulted whenever someone is raped.

If Texas wants out of the Union just tell them to hurry the fuck up.

i'm a texan you are very ignorant, in fact i think it was 45% of us voted obama, but I digress, their decision of executing the guy was seperate from finding him guilty, the court plays out like this:
We the jury find blah blah blah guilty of the charges claimed,
The judge goes: Has the jury issued a punishment?
Jury goes: Put to death,
Judge will then decide whether or not it is a just punishment.
(pretty simplified)
By all means, according to the texas constitution, if he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, he should have been executed. Learn some laws...

 

[Miles Tormani]

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."

this is true, i don't disagree with that, but, speaking as a brit, it doesn't make sense that swearing an oath on a bible should be standard procedure for witnesses in a trial. if church and state are separate in your country, shouldn't that be illegal too?
just asking

No, it doesn't make sense (the President has to swear an Oath on the Bible too), and yes, it should also be unconstitutional. However, like I said in that edit, it's not like American government actually goes by its own Constitution as it should anymore. These days it seems to be outright ignored.

no he doesn't you can choose whatever book you wish to swear on, hell you could swear on a maxim magazine if you wanted. You can do so in the court of law anyways, learn you laws. and secondly the separation of church and state isn't explicitly documented in the constitution, it just says bodies of law can't rule in favor of a religion, nothign about ceremonial situations, although there is some gray area.

The run-on and fragmented sentences in this post make it very difficult to respond properly.

Regardless, I do believe the main topic at hand here is using a religious text to deliver a ruling in a court of law, which falls quite nicely under what you just claimed is the not quite so gray area that says "bodies of law can't rule in favor of a religion." By the way, that, in a nutshell, is separation of church and state.

Also, separation of church and state is in Amendment 1. Again, this goes above "learning me laws." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

 

[crepesack]

XD ahahaha oh you, so uneducated. where in the constitution does it say "separation of church and state"? point it out to me and then try this argument until then you have no backing.
I'm texan as well and I would appreciate it if everyone would lay off the hate on my state!

Then stop doing such laughably hatable things. Like what I mentioned earlier with the exorcism.

what about exorcism?

Separation of Church and State evidence (thank you, wikipedia.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

Texas Exorcism case, thanks google.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/1156716.html

a misinterpretation of the separation of church and state. While deciding upon a sentence, i think the jury has a right to apply whatever moral spectrum he or she is acquainted with, the constitutionality comes into play if the verdict of his guilt was based on the bible itself, which I am finding difficult to do. Although it could be argued that as a body of the USFG in no way religion can be part of the judiciary system... but these are legal semantics. The constitution was designed to be very vague, there are many interpretations.

 

[Kilo24]

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.

Isn't that the Bible's? Pretty sure i heard that from the bible or Koran or some shit like that.

All tho i do agree with you.

No that would be Hammurabi's code

It's what he said, but not what he meant. "An eye for an eye" was originally a limitation on punishment. There were too many tongues and heads cut off for blasphemy or disrespecting powerful people. It now generally means the opposite of what it meant before.

Whether it's a good idea one way or another, I'm personally not sure. The very concept of the justice system is built on a flawed (but necessarily so) basis.

Edit:
As far as murder is considered, it's defined as an unjustified killing. A unilaterally applied modern-definition "eye for an eye" philosophy turns it into a huge mess. If person A kills someone in a way that he thinks is justified, but person B thinks is murder, then person B kills person A as justice, then anyone else who agreed with person A is morally obligated to make sure person B gets killed. Which leads to the same issue over again with anyone who agreed with person B... And a similar mess can occur with pretty much any crime.

 

[elitemonkeh]

Eye for an Eye an such.


Also, to all "Eye for an Eye leaves the whole world blind" fucks, it doesn't if people didn't do bad things inherently. Fucking idiots.

How does the eye for an eye philosophy apply to rape? What if the guy who raped someone wants to be raped? then what? Also what if a chick cuts a guys balls off, what do they do to her?

All questions left unanswered

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.

Isn't that the Bible's? Pretty sure i heard that from the bible or Koran or some shit like that.

All tho i do agree with you.

No that would be Hammurabi's code

It's what he said, but not what he meant. "An eye for an eye" was originally a limitation on punishment. There were too many tongues and heads cut off for blasphemy or disrespecting powerful people. It now generally means the opposite of what it meant before.

Whether it's a good idea one way or another, I'm personally not sure. The very concept of the justice system is built on a flawed (but necessarily so) basis.

This does make far more sense than modern interpretation, but I believe he expanded upon this statement in the lines following. I can't remember (it's been a while since I studied Hammurabi) but I'll have to look it up later.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Texas is a strange place...

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

Eye for an Eye an such.


Also, to all "Eye for an Eye leaves the whole world blind" fucks, it doesn't if people didn't do bad things inherently. Fucking idiots.

How does the eye for an eye philosophy apply to rape? What if the guy who raped someone wants to be raped? then what? Also what if a chick cuts a guys balls off, what do they do to her?

All questions left unanswered

They kill her.



If you steal a piece of gum when you're 8, you should be killed.



Thats me, Mr. Snugglesworth.

 

[crepesack]

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."

this is true, i don't disagree with that, but, speaking as a brit, it doesn't make sense that swearing an oath on a bible should be standard procedure for witnesses in a trial. if church and state are separate in your country, shouldn't that be illegal too?
just asking

No, it doesn't make sense (the President has to swear an Oath on the Bible too), and yes, it should also be unconstitutional. However, like I said in that edit, it's not like American government actually goes by its own Constitution as it should anymore. These days it seems to be outright ignored.

no he doesn't you can choose whatever book you wish to swear on, hell you could swear on a maxim magazine if you wanted. You can do so in the court of law anyways, learn you laws. and secondly the separation of church and state isn't explicitly documented in the constitution, it just says bodies of law can't rule in favor of a religion, nothign about ceremonial situations, although there is some gray area.

The run-on and fragmented sentences in this post make it very difficult to respond properly.

Regardless, I do believe the main topic at hand here is using a religious text to deliver a ruling in a court of law, which falls quite nicely under what you just claimed is the not quite so gray area that says "bodies of law can't rule in favor of a religion." By the way, that, in a nutshell, is separation of church and state.

Also, separation of church and state is in Amendment 1. Again, this goes above "learning me laws." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

again, I was trying to refute the idea that you would always have to swear upon the bible in a legal situation, you don't. And secondly the Separation of Church and State isn't completely clear. The constitution is open to interpretation, it was a two page document, literally, that we now rely on to organize a vast nation. I interpret the article as, the state cannot intervene in a religion or institute a religion. So, if the jury used the bible as a test to the constitutionality of the Texas constitutions, law for execution, it would be a just decision. But if they used the bible to adjudicate the convicted's guilt, then there is a legal fault in their decision.
My point is, finding one person guilty is not the same as sentencing them to death.

 

[Andantil]

I support the death penalty, but this is just stupid.

 

[llewgriff]

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.

Okay scenario. Your Parent(s)/silblings/partner is murdered, you kill the murderer even though he poses no threat to you. Do you deserve to die then.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Eye for an Eye an such.


Also, to all "Eye for an Eye leaves the whole world blind" fucks, it doesn't if people didn't do bad things inherently. Fucking idiots.

The basic suggestion is that if everyone kills each other over a wrong, we'd all be dead.

But regardless of that, state sponsored murder is something I can never get behind.

 

[elitemonkeh]

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."

this is true, i don't disagree with that, but, speaking as a brit, it doesn't make sense that swearing an oath on a bible should be standard procedure for witnesses in a trial. if church and state are separate in your country, shouldn't that be illegal too?
just asking

No, it doesn't make sense (the President has to swear an Oath on the Bible too), and yes, it should also be unconstitutional. However, like I said in that edit, it's not like American government actually goes by its own Constitution as it should anymore. These days it seems to be outright ignored.

no he doesn't you can choose whatever book you wish to swear on, hell you could swear on a maxim magazine if you wanted. You can do so in the court of law anyways, learn you laws. and secondly the separation of church and state isn't explicitly documented in the constitution, it just says bodies of law can't rule in favor of a religion, nothign about ceremonial situations, although there is some gray area.

The run-on and fragmented sentences in this post make it very difficult to respond properly.

Regardless, I do believe the main topic at hand here is using a religious text to deliver a ruling in a court of law, which falls quite nicely under what you just claimed is the not quite so gray area that says "bodies of law can't rule in favor of a religion." By the way, that, in a nutshell, is separation of church and state.

Also, separation of church and state is in Amendment 1. Again, this goes above "learning me laws." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

again, I was trying to refute the idea that you would always have to swear upon the bible in a legal situation, you don't. And secondly the Separation of Church and State isn't completely clear. The constitution is open to interpretation, it was a two page document, literally, that we now rely on to organize a vast nation. I interpret the article as, the state cannot intervene in a religion or institute a religion. So, if the jury used the bible as a test to the constitutionality of the Texas constitutions, law for execution, it would be a just decision. But if they used the bible to adjudicate the convicted's guilt, then there is a legal fault in their decision.
My point is, finding one person guilty is not the same as sentencing them to death.

It may have originally been two pages (I'll take your word on it I'm not sure it was) but it has been amended many times to cover a broad spectrum of law. Regardless of what its original length was, it now covers most legal issues, or at least basic legal principles. We don't "rely on it to organize a vast nation." It organizes our governing body and covers law.

Edit: I looked it up and the original document was 4 pages of very small handwriting and the pages were rather large. Don't act like it was some two page, double spaced, 12 font, Microsoft word document.