I am baffled about this ruling.

[no1_vern]

I personnaly think these people judged the case correctly in that they convicted this criminal for murdering 1 and paralyzing another.

The judge thinks that the Bible has nothing to do with justice.

Vern

[muno]

It will be a sad day in world when western nations mix justice with religion.

Hammurabs law isn't humane.
-M

[Siliconjunkie]

Here's the rub on this one. By using the bible to decide his fate they are holding them to the bibles standard. Not the standards of the laws which govern his actions.

This causes problems because not everyone holds the same beliefs. What if he is not Christian? Who decides that he will be judged by Christian standards?

There are laws in place that govern and dictate what actions should be taken and they are what guidelines should be used. If a member of the jury makes a decision based on their upbringing and how they think the law should be applied, then the system has worked. He was judged by a jury of his peers. But, if the decision is based on a juror citing biblical quotes to others and infuencing their decision then he was judged by a church.

[no1_vern]

The point was, I thought, that the judge had decided that since Bibles were available, that the decision was biased because some of the jurors had read the Bible when deciding this mans fate. Not that any juror had said anything to other jurors. The fact that some jurors were helped by reading the bible to make their decision seems to be a good thing.

In ANY religion I know of MURDER AND MAIMING are crimes that must be delt with as harshly as possible - even our own justice system thinks they must be delt with harshly.

The statement "the sequestration order applied to news media coverage and that jurors should be allowed to draw upon their personal moral code including the Bible while rendering a verdict" means the bible can be used to help someone make a moral decision.

I personally think it should be used in CERTAIN CASES. This is one such case and the judge is letting his own personal bias interfere in allowing justice to happen.

[muno]

Judge has to be unbiased. Clearly hi thought that the verdict was biased by direct affiliation from religious texts.

Of course it's natural that normal people have their moral codes infected with religious stuff. But not thinking for themselves, and instead reading what was done during biblical times is outright wrong.
-M

[osprey4]

Originally posted by muno
It will be a sad day in world when western nations mix justice with religion.

Since when could a society divorce justice from religion?? You need to go back and learn some history.

[osprey4]

Originally posted by muno
Of course it's natural that normal people have their moral codes infected with religious stuff.

Yeah, it would be a real shame if peoples brains were "infected" with "religious" ideas such as...

...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

We certainly can't let this kind of religious stuff infect our courts, huh?

Muno, I realize you're from another country, but virtually all western principles of jurisprudence are based on Judeo-Christian principles. To ignore that is to ignore history.

[muno]

You don't quite seem to get it.

Religion should not interfere with the justice, I am not saying it doesn't affect morals of people, I am saying that bible should not be taken as it reads.
What you are suggesting is that there should be an equal to the islamic law in islamic countries, just stone everyone who has broken some law and whatso.

You are deliberately misunderstanding what I'm saying.
I, as a nonbeliever, do believe that there are some good guidelines in bible - like 'thou shalt not harm another person'. But copying that book directly to a lawbook would be just plain stupid.

Of course they are based on those principles, could people just ignore a millenia of thinking something the way it is right away? Of course not.

The point was, do not read what is right and wrong from the bible, but reach within yourself, even if your own moral was of christian ground, it's your moral, not someone elses.
-M

[M_Six]

muno is right, and so is this judge, IMHO. One woman on that jury used passages from the Bible to influence the decision of another juror. The Bible has no place in a court of law. The ONLY text that should be used by a jury to decide guilt or innocence is the law as it is written.

The fact that muno is from another country is entirely IRRELEVANT. Since when do US citizens have a singular claim to wisdom?

[Theophylact]

Some of you guys need to understand a little law, I think. When the judge makes his charge to a jury, he tells them what the relevant law is and he tells them how to apply it. They may not use their own notions of law, Biblical, Hammurabic, Shari'a or whatever. I realize you can't take a person's religion out of his head, but you can keep him from applying it explicitly instead of the law.

In ANY religion I know of MURDER AND MAIMING are crimes that must be dealt with as harshly as possible - even our own justice system thinks they must be dealt with harshly.

You also need to know more religions. In Iceland, pre-1000 CE, the Norse religion required no such thing, and the court/parliament, the Althing, assessed money penalties for murder. In some Shari'a courts in backward parts of Nigeria, adultery by a woman is punished by stoning to death, while that by a man is usually unpunished. And if you look at what the Bible says should be punished by death (including failing to respect your parents), you might wonder why they thought maiming should require only such a mild punishment as maiming.