An Eye for An Eye?
Dietz writes today about a Colorado Supreme Court decision overturning the death penalty in a rape case because the jury used the Bible to inform its deliberations. Via the New York Times (reg. required):
The jurors in Harlan’s 1995 trial sentenced him to die, but defense lawyers discovered five of them had looked up Bible verses, copied them down and talked about them while deliberating a sentence behind closed doors.The Supreme Court said that "at least one juror in this case could have been influenced by these authoritative passages to vote for the death penalty when he or she may otherwise have voted for a life sentence."
Relying only upon what's in the New York Times, I agree with the court's decision as well as Dietz when he asks, "[H]ow then can we argue for a modern legal code in the Middle-East if we are going to accept a reliance upon biblical law in our own courts?"
However, I will draw a distinction. The issue I have with the jury's decision is not that some members relied upon the Bible to help them reach a decision, but that apparently certain passages from the Bible were debated for the entire jury to consider.
We all have our reasons why we do or don't support the death penalty. I, for one, would probably never get on a death penalty case because I could not sentence someone to death. I don't believe we have the right to decide who lives or dies. That's my own moral code, informed by beliefs acquired throughout my life.
For other people, their moral code is informed by the Bible, and if they believe in an "eye for an eye," then I don't think there's anything wrong with that informing their decision in a death penalty case. It's when they argue the Bible to persuade other people, when they enter the Bible into the larger overall discussion for all to consider that they've gone too far. That's when we start basing policy decisions on religion in a society that is ostensibly religion blind.
Comments
Those same folks who point out 'an eye for an eye' tend to gloss over a couple of other verses in the Bible; one tells you to 'judge not, lest ye be judged', another says 'vengeance is mine, saith the Lord', and yet another says 'let he who is without guilt cast the first stone'. Between those and turning the other cheek, doing unto others, etc, I wonder how anyone who claims to be a Christian could ever support the death penalty.
A whole lotta selective verse-quoting going on out there. Just goes to show that no matter what your position is, you can probably find a verse to support it.
Posted by: hnumpah | March 29, 2005 04:00 PM
I have to disagree with you Lesley.
There's no real doubt that morality informs legislation, but once morality is codified in to law it no longer stands as a moral code but becomes legal code. As such the presiding judge in a case informs an empanneled jury precisely what laws the defendent is accused of and what the jury is legaly obligated to consider in rendering a decision, both in terms of conviction and sentencing.
All of this is based entirely in existing leglislation and judicial interpretation. That is why the courts routinely order a jury to take in to consideration only that which is presented before it at trial and by the judge. The idea being we leave our preconceptions at the court room door. This may not be a perfect system, but it is the best we can do to insure fairness and uniformity in our judicial system.
Posted by: Dietz | March 29, 2005 06:27 PM
You mean you have to disagree with Jon.
Posted by: Lesley | March 29, 2005 06:33 PM
Oops, you're right. I guess I should read the by-line.
Posted by: Dietz | March 29, 2005 07:54 PM
How the jury reaches the moral rational for a death penalty is now under judicial review?
They listen to the facts ads presented in court to return the guilty/not proven guilty verdict.
How they decide upon the proper sentence has to have a moral as well as factual basis, that is why there is a jury of your peers. The jury of your peers is codifying subjectivity into the judicial system, to use the bible is no less proper than any other ethical basis, that is one of the places your peers finds the rational for their ethics.
This judge was just plain wrong.
Posted by: Justin | March 30, 2005 11:51 AM
I have to disagree. In the decision, the judge indicated that his problem was the presence of the Bible in the jury room. By that reasoning, it would have been OK for a juror to quote the Bible, but not read it? That puts some Christians, whose practice is to memorize the Bible verses, at a huge advantage over other jurors, who won't have access to the original source to refute that interpretation.
Posted by: Linda F | April 12, 2005 08:02 AM
My point is not that it's ok for the Bible to be an open part of jury deliberations. Rather that if people use the Bible to inform their own personal decisions, without quoting or reading from it during deliberations, than I see no problem with it playing a role.
Posted by: Jon | April 12, 2005 06:59 PM