Andrew Pauley
10-23-09
3:10pm
A Texas man who faces execution after jurors at his trial consulted the Bible when deliberating his fate should have his death sentence commuted, Amnesty International said on Friday. Khristian Oliver, 32, is set to be killed on November 5th, after jurors used Biblical passages supporting the death penalty to help them decide whether he should live or die. Amnesty International is calling on the Texas authorities to commute Khristian Oliver’s death sentence. The organization considers that the jurors’ use of the Bible during their sentencing deliberations raises serious questions about their impartiality. A U.S. federal appeals court acknowledged last year that the jurors’ use of the Bible amounted to an “external influence” prohibited under the U.S. Constitution, but nonetheless upheld the death sentence. The judge ruled that the jury had not acted improperly and this was upheld by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Just as I have said before in how the reverse of the state making influence on the church is wrong, this too is wrong in my opinion. Everyone should be allowed to let their religion influence their personal life decisions but not decisions involving one that is supposed to be made solely on your interpretation of evidence presented and the constitution. These jurors job description says no where that the Bible is supposed to be consulted in making a decision on a criminals fate. Now yes, I do believe what the Bible says and if my orders were for me to make a
Decisions using my own personal religious beliefs then consulting the Bible would be an acceptable tool. However, this was not the case in the job of jury duty. As I have said before we all have to learn to check things at the door when they are not acceptable in certain situations. This was a courtroom and the decision was to be made upon evidence and the constitution, I think since those are the rules then that is what should have been followed.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGNAU2009100913472
1 comment:
I think it's kind of interesting to put up a stark dichotomy between "civic duty" and "religious belief." For one, within the context of the verse mentioned in the article (Numbers 35:16), these particular ordinances were being set down by God to Moses for the entire Hebrew nation, thereby eliminating any schism between personal religious beliefs and the legal expectations for the secular component of society.
Two, if a person's religious convictions do not inherently influence their thinking regarding sentencing another person to death, then what sort of "religion" are they trying to follow? I'm not going into whether or not the death sentence is right or wrong, but if a person takes whatever faith they claim to adhere to so lightly that they allow it to be checked at the door, then... It just makes me wonder if we have turned this notion of "freedom of religion" into a religion (that is to say that the Decalogue of the U.S.A. is written in James Madison's handwriting). But if that is the case, as I think it is, then the juror who stated that he believes "the Bible is truth from page one to the last," can in no way be legally reprimanded for consulting his own beliefs. In fact, his exhibition of his religious freedoms sings a note closer in resonance with those of the Democratic Faith than those who would abandon faith for secular civic duty - the "Founders" were all lunatics and traitors, according to the crown. All that's not to say that he should force his ideas on others, but according to the article, 80% of the jurors consulted the Bible "long before" reaching a verdict. However, I don't really understand how the same man who holds the whole Bible as truth amounts a prisoner's life sentence to be nothing more than a "burden on the taxpayer." Perhaps we should reiterate the truth of Matthew 25:34-46.
I also think it's interesting that the only trial-related evidence mentioned in the article - though I'm sure there was more - is the testimony of the convicted's accomplice. What then, should we say about Numbers 35:30?
I don't know anything about law, but what I do know frightens me, which leads me in the direction of mercy, which I don't really get either yet and am incapable of on my own.
What's kind of funny to me about all this is that this shows a flaw in the notion that being judged by a jury of peers in a society that does not collectively own up to any particular external truth - except that which was drafted in 1787 - is the best way to establish a legal basis for judgment. I also currently think "juror impartiality" isn't really real and really doubt anyone reads all this blabber. Hooray Friday.
Post a Comment