I don't care if they got that from the Bible. As long as it means he dies. Beat to death with his own rifle trying to defend himself.... that's possibly the shitiest way to go. if ANYONE can say that the killer deserves to live they are on CRACK!
Texas man faces execution after jurors consult Bible to decide fate
- Thread starter GoldenCondor
- Start date
Recommended Videos
But it does matter they used a bible. Especially since he was going to be sentenced to death because of the law, then what was the damn point of having a bible there? Well, other than showing the bible should be used to judge someone's actions. Also, the fact that it was available to the jury only raises the questions what else was available to them and how often this happens without anyone knowing(and where the bible influenced a decision).kitsunema said:
Freedom OF religion does NOT = Freedom "FROM" ReligionMaster Cerberus said:
What you are advocating is the restriction and subsequent oppression of an entire demographic of people.
Thats an EXTREMELY dangerous line of thought you are starting down... such things lead first to segregation, then direct oppression of such activities such as in China... it starts with removing it from certain 'places' such as a building used to conduct legal proceedings.. then it starts branching out to 'other' places.. places of education, places of PUBLIC gatherings, etc.. soon you would want to stamp out any open and public displays of "religious belief".
So then you'll drive those people underground. But then you wont be able to tell who they are any more, which means they could be doing things secretly that might be of concern.
So then you'll decide that in order to make sure we know who these "people" are so that you can make sure to prohibit their actions accordingly, you'll decide to "mark" them. They will be required to wear badges or patches to distinguish who they are so you know that these people who might be memorizing their bibles don't go anywhere near a building of legal proceedings since it is not enough to remove just the PHYSICAL reminder of their religious beliefs. But then these people will grow tired of being treated differently and oppressed for their BELIEFS and start rejecting the mandatory wearing of their patches.. so you will seek a more permanent solution.. branding them in a way they cannot remove with tattoos, forming lists of "known practitioners" and setting up special units of "law enforcement" in order to ensure these people are obeying your edicts. But still that wont be enough. They will continue to have their faith and beliefs and *gasp* they might even be Gathering and sharing these beliefs! Can't have that can you?
So then the gathering of such groups will be restricted... at first to "designated" areas where you can monitor them, but then you'll realize SOME people are worshipping in the privacy of their own homes! well that simply won't do... so then private worship will be outlawed. Soon you'll institute a "narc" system where people can report when and where these people hold their clandestine meetings. As more and more people are convicted and the prison's fill up, naturally the penalties to deter such actions will increase... until finally, you decide that the only way to completely rid society of these foolish, barbaric "beliefs" is to snuff out the religion altogether.
You decide on a "final solution".
Does any of this sound familiar? It should.
The Road to HELL is paved with "good intentions".
We live in a land of freedom. If i want to carry my Bible with me and refer to it for guidance in my life and moral decisions then that is my RIGHT. If you do not want to have any part of it, then that is YOUR Right and I would die to defend it. But people of faith are just as capable of making logical decisions based on facts and evidence as any one else. Just because we would refer to a higher power to aid us in MORAL decisions (i.e. decisions that could resort in the DEATH of a human being, in this case the accused murderer) then there is absolutely NO fault in that.
Again, it's a silly argument all around. People don't read the BIBLE to make it EASIER to SENTENCE people to death.. in fact, for a true Christian of faith or a True Muslim, such a decision is distasteful. Christians don't WANT to put ANYONE to death. We forgive. We hold out HOPE that people can change and believe in MERCY. Those are the true teachings of Christ.
So if anything, in cases of the DEATH penalty where a group of people have to decide to end the LIFE of another person, I personally believe as much moral material as possible should be available.. every room should have a Bible, Quran, Tennants of Xenu or whatever in them. Why?
Because the worst scenario is a bunch of juries comprised of people who have no problem making moral life and death decisions at the drop of a hat with all the sterility of a Nazi firing squad.
Heaven help you should you find yourself on trial awaiting the verdict of such a group of faith-less people who tossed their Bibles out in favor of secular progression.
Because in that situation, you'll most likely find yourself all the more likely to wind up with a needle in YOUR arm.
Agreed. I'm fairly tired of those whom use these events as an excuse to come together to recite their pre-assembled and rehearsed hate speeches. I agree with those whom say that this man should not be considered innocent simply because the jurors used the Bible as a reference to find a suitable punishment for this murderer, it was not used as evidence anyways.Tdc2182 said:
So he breaks into somebody's home, beats them to death, and he gets the death penalty. I agree with this. The jurors consult the bible for a conviction. So? They wanted moral guidance on their side, so they got it. Not a big deal. Now, if they used the bible as evidence against him, that's an entirely different story altogether.
Mr Elitemonkeh, you appear to be new to the Escapist forums, and thus I think these misunderstandings are occuring because you don't realize just how bad the situation is here. Take a butchers at these...elitemonkeh said:
And this...
And this...
We have a bunch of extremely aggressive and bigoted people here claiming to be atheists who use every single opportunity they can to troll anyone who doesn't agree with their point of view. Most of us (Christians, Muslims, Pagans, atheists, whatever) are utterly sick to death of all the hate speeches.
I can't agree any more. I'm sorry, my hard-earned money that I legally have to funnel into Taxes shouldn't be spent keeping some guy who committed quadruple-homicide alive. Put a round in him, another to be sure, and throw him into the ground. No coffin, nothing. Ground could use fertilizer anyway.tsb247 said:
Edit: Note that I am not refering to this case in particular, but to Washington State, which is far more lax on the Death Penalty. I believe I've only ever heard of three people being executed up here in about 15 years of recollection, and this state makes headlines out of executions.
His sentence most certainly shouldnt be related to the Bible... and I think any reference to such should be striken from the records and the reason changed to something reasonable.
Its a dangerous path they are walking, just look at what else it says deserves punishment in the Bible... should not go down that path.
Its a dangerous path they are walking, just look at what else it says deserves punishment in the Bible... should not go down that path.
and besides the obvious "he murdered someone...in Texas" statement...the Bibles weren't used as 'evidence' really
I'm sure the jurors could have simply memorized said verses and their reference would have been used to the same respect (that is, in their minds)
and well...it's Texas!
...
I mean, he's lucky that was the verse the conjured up. there are others in the Bible that could have spelled a worst death for him.
like Chuck Norris (sorry, had to lol)
I'm sure the jurors could have simply memorized said verses and their reference would have been used to the same respect (that is, in their minds)
and well...it's Texas!
...
I mean, he's lucky that was the verse the conjured up. there are others in the Bible that could have spelled a worst death for him.
like Chuck Norris (sorry, had to lol)
I wouldn't want any religious zealots on my jury, BUT:
"He was sentenced to death in 1999 for murdering a man whose home Oliver was burgling. The victim was shot in the face and beaten with his own rifle."
And that's the bottom line.
"He was sentenced to death in 1999 for murdering a man whose home Oliver was burgling. The victim was shot in the face and beaten with his own rifle."
And that's the bottom line.
I'm not arguing whether or not the killer deserved the sentence that got handed down, I'm arguing the state's line of reasoning in reaching that sentence. A court that refers to the Bible for legal guidance is fundamentally flawed as it is, but when a court needs the Bible to decide if a murderer should be punished... Something's broken in the brains of the accusers.Vuljatar said:
Well you missed my point completely, my point was that relgion should have no place in law and that removing as much religion as possible (including holy texts) from a room where a mans fate is decided. By removing these things they wont STOP thinking of their religous beliefs but they are LESS LIKELY to bring them in to the equation.HyenaThePirate said:
And yes I would have sent him to his death but you should never look to religion in a time like this, you need cold rational thought in a jury. Not opinion.
What if, hypothetically, a religious text had said that this isn't a crime (i know this would NEVER happen but remember we are staying hypothetical here) and that the man should be allowed to go free. Lets say that one of the jurors was a practitioner of that religion and that he brought this matter up and convinced his hypothetical piers that because a religion said that it wasn't a crime that the man should be let go despite the evidence.
Can you imagine the uproar that would cause in the hypothetical universe?
Just because the text said that the man should get whats coming to him doesnt mean its right to use it. You can't hide behind that excuse. Its bullshit.
Removing the issue of religion it can be put like this:
The jurors used an outside influence to come to a decision. Even if it was technically the right decision, it should not have been allowed to happen because it means that the outside influence has had an effect on the trial. A trial should focus simply on the facts presented in court. NOTHING ELSE should be considered.
