US Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge To Jury's Use Of Bible

[Ramen]

From boingboing:

A Texas man killed his victim by shooting him and beating him with the barrel of a gun. During deliberations, the jury consulted the Bible and found this passage:

35:16 And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.

The murderer said his Constitutional rights were challenged, and took it to the Supreme Court, which turned away the challenge. Does this mean that you can be executed for working on Sunday?

Exodus 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

Court Turns Down Challenge To Jury's Use Of Bible

[davo]

nothing like the death sentence supported by the bible and the courts as well

[youngmoigle]

This is the sort of story that I simply don't accept. It's all a bit too "cute" for me.

I wonder what really happened in the jury room. What did the judge really say. Who reported the story in the first place. Is there even such a court case?

Maybe it's all true, but I'd like to see more details - and a transcript of everything that was said.

[davo]

Originally Posted by youngmoigle

This is the sort of story that I simply don't accept. It's all a bit too "cute" for me.

I wonder what really happened in the jury room. What did the judge really say. Who reported the story in the first place. Is there even such a court case?

Maybe it's all true, but I'd like to see more details - and a transcript of everything that was said.

Considering 44,000 references to it on news sources around the web :

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Court+Turns+Down+Challenge+To+Jury's+Use+ Of+Bible

I'd say the actual case is true at least. Considering as well that all cases are publically available, and there is reference too :

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year said jurors wrongly used the Bible but said there wasn't enough evidence to show they were prejudiced when they decided to send Oliver to death row in 1999

There was testimony put too State and lower federal courts that some jurors consulted the bible passage.

I think it's agreed by all that it occured, its just over whether the jurors looking at the decision where effected by it that it biased them to the death penalty, is the issue.

[youngmoigle]

Originally Posted by davo

Considering 44,000 references to it on news sources around the web :

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Court+Turns+Down+Challenge+To+Jury's+Use+ Of+Bible

I'd say the actual case is true at least. Considering as well that all cases are publically available, and there is reference too :

There was testimony put too State and lower federal courts that some jurors consulted the bible passage.

I think it's agreed by all that it occured, its just over whether the jurors looking at the decision where effected by it that it biased them to the death penalty, is the issue.

In the back of my mind I think it probably is a true story, but I'd really like to hear exactly what was said, by whom, and in what context. Reporters have been known to put a "spin" on stories like this - hence my cynical attitude.

...and if the story is true and my doubts are unfounded; well that's OK, I've been wrong before.

[youngmoigle]

Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black

Thanks for reminding me of the necessity to be skeptical, Youngmoigle.

I did grant this story a pass to the Credibility Lounge, as I have been seeing media links to it via Atheist Nexus for some time now.

What I unbelieveable is the silence of the learned jurists.

I'll give you a good example of why I have learned to be skeptical about these things: I once worked at a place where we were receiving about $10 above award wages. On this particular occasion, instead of asking for a pay rise, we asked that the above-award-payment be written into the award (so that we were no longer in danger of losing it).

The company decided to cut out the over award payment and give us a $4 per week pay rise, which was actually $6 per week less than we were already receiving.

Next day the newspaper reports implied that we were a buch of greedy bastards: We knocked back a $4 pay rise (a large amount in those days) and were holding out for more.

We immediately called the newspaper and told the editor that the $4 "rise" was actually a $6 "cut", but that fact was never reported.

The strike went on for quite a few weeks and each new offer was less than the above-award payment we were already receiving - and despite a huge number of phone calls to the editor, the true facts were never published.

It wasn't that the editor was unsympathetic, it was just that he knew he could sell more newspapers if the headlines said that Unionists Were Holding The Country To Ransom.

Technically, the editor was right: We had been offered a relatively large pay rise and we had knocked it back. Only someone in possession of all the facts could see what was really happening; that we were going to have our wages reduced.