AFA Poll

[pecunium]

The AFA has a poll, related to a case in Colorado which involves questions of religion and jury decision.

The sound bite is the jurors were instructed to consider (as Colo. law requires) moral factors in recommending the sentence (the verdict had been rendered). Several of them used biblical verses to argue that death was not only justified, but required.

Fred Phelps The Slacktivist has a great post (he's an evangelical Christian) on the subject. Be sure to read the comments.

He also raises a point; those who are opposed to the death penalty are routinely denied the right to sit on juries in captial cases. I wonder if one could argue religious discrimination (which is the underlying thrust of the AFA Poll).

So, the poll is located here Should the Bible be banned from the jury room? (I don't title them). Right now the ratio is 1,000 to one, in favor of it being allowed in.

Comments

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Well, that's part of the problem, to quote the NYT, "After Mr. Harlan's conviction, the judge in the case -- as Colorado law requires -- sent the jury off to deliberate about the death penalty with an instruction to think beyond the narrow confines of the law. Each juror, the judge told the panel, must make an "individual moral assessment," in deciding whether Mr. Harlan should live."

Which makes the question of outside text less clear. Me, I think they can't bring it in, but then again, nothing says they can't refer to textual reference from memory, and if that's the case...

But then again, I'd be hard to empanel for a capital case, because while I'm not against it, per se I don't think the State can do it fairly.

TK

[lawgeekgurl.livejournal.com]

From what I've read, Colorado law allows jurors to consider the sentencing phase of a death penalty case using their own moral compass and the law; however, the jurors cannot refer to physical texts brought inside the deliberation room for that purpose. It seems to be splitting hairs to me. If you explicitly tell people they can use their own morality in determining if someone deserves the death penalty (as opposed to, say, the mitigating or aggravating factors defined by law), you're opening the door to this kind of argument.

We all know that jury members do not deliberate in a vaccuum; they do bring their own prejudices and beliefs to the table - but part of the duty of a jury is to impose the rule of law as determined by the people in the form of criminal statutes and sentencing guidelines.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Looking at the slip opinion, what the juror did was worse than that.

He, and perhaps they, brought in Levitical Law as if it were binding. In short they said the bible not only provided guidance, by way of moral compass, but in fact mandated, with no room for argument that only death was available.

And in that vein, it is worse than questionable, it is against the law, straight up and without question.

TK