I do not understand...

[smileynev]

...how knowing passages in the bible should affect one way or another whether their decision should stand or not

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/29/bible.deliberations.ap/index.html

Who cares if they talked about it.

 

[HifiGirly]

Guess its the whole seperation of church and state.

 

[Syrup Beaver]

Far more disturbing than that is

"Harlan later admitted killing her, but said he was addled by cocaine, alcohol and rage."



So that makes it okay? "Yeah man, I wouldnt've killed the entire population of Des Moines, but man that rage sure got to me bad, you understand, right?"

 

[theacoustician]

...how knowing passages in the bible should affect one way or another whether their decision should stand or not

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/29/bible.deliberations.ap/index.html

Who cares if they talked about it.

Using religion to make your own decision is one thing. I think the reason the ruling was tossed was because they were using religion to persuade other jurors.

 

[smileynev]

Using religion to make your own decision is one thing. I think the reason the ruling was tossed was because they were using religion to persuade other jurors.

How is that different then using other means to persuade the jurors? If its what you truly believe, why shouldn't it be allowed. They are private citizens, afterall.

 

[smileynev]

Far more disturbing than that is

"Harlan later admitted killing her, but said he was addled by cocaine, alcohol and rage."



So that makes it okay? "Yeah man, I wouldnt've killed the entire population of Des Moines, but man that rage sure got to me bad, you understand, right?"

You didn't know that? I've watched Law and Order enough to know that being temporarilly "really really angry" is just cause to kill someone and not be responsible for it.

 

[theacoustician]

How is that different then using other means to persuade the jurors? If its what you truly believe, why shouldn't it be allowed. They are private citizens, afterall.

Jurors are only supposed to use facts presented in the case, law, and additional guidelines set forth by the judge to determine a case. Outside influences are not allowed.

Edit - its the same reason they don't let jurors use the news as a determining factor.

 

[smileynev]

Jurors are only supposed to use facts presented in the case, law, and additional guidelines set forth by the judge to determine a case. Outside influences are not allowed.

ah, that makes sense. If thats the case, though, then why is the jury even allowed to make the decision? Shouldn't it be pretty cut and dry. If he's guilty of the crime then shouldn't it be automatic?

 

[theacoustician]

ah, that makes sense. If thats the case, though, then why is the jury even allowed to make the decision? Shouldn't it be pretty cut and dry. If he's guilty of the crime then shouldn't it be automatic?

I don't think it was a question if he was guilty or not. It was really what they should do about it. Should they give him death, life, etc.

 

[Syrup Beaver]

You didn't know that? I've watched Law and Order enough to know that being temporarilly "really really angry" is just cause to kill someone and not be responsible for it.

Sweet

*takes notes*

 

[BigDov]

I don't think it was a question if he was guilty or not. It was really what they should do about it. Should they give him death, life, etc.

I'll consult with the Lord in my one-on-one later today and get back to you on this issue.....

 

[smileynev]

I don't think it was a question if he was guilty or not. It was really what they should do about it. Should they give him death, life, etc.

How do they determine who gets the death penalty and who doesn't?

 

[Coqui]

Jurors are only supposed to use facts presented in the case, law, and additional guidelines set forth by the judge to determine a case. Outside influences are not allowed.

Edit - its the same reason they don't let jurors use the news as a determining factor.

But the verdict was already made. This was solely for the purpose of whether or not he got the death penalty

 

[Coqui]

How do they determine who gets the death penalty and who doesn't?

12 people decide if you die or not. Fun isn't it?

 

[smileynev]

12 people decide if you die or not. Fun isn't it?

I would rather have 12 people decide than one person coked up with a gun.

 

[theacoustician]

How do they determine who gets the death penalty and who doesn't?

Its usually some rough guidelines setup by the judge. He'll give the jury instructions on "If you think the crime met this qualification(s), then the sentence can be ______. If not, then the sentence can be _________.

 

[BigDov]

12 people decide if you die or not. Fun isn't it?

Given the right set of circumstances, probably

 

[theacoustician]

But the verdict was already made. This was solely for the purpose of whether or not he got the death penalty

They're very clear about no outside influences. Should they overturn the whole conviction? No, but the only people who can determine his sentence are the ones that sat through the whole trial and heard all the evidence. So basically they jury was a bunch of fuck ups who can't follow directions. If I were the DA, I'd slap all of them with fines in order to cover the costs of the retrial.

 

[Coqui]

They're very clear about no outside influences. Should they overturn the whole conviction? No, but the only people who can determine his sentence are the ones that sat through the whole trial and heard all the evidence. So basically they jury was a bunch of fuck ups who can't follow directions. If I were the DA, I'd slap all of them with fines in order to cover the costs of the retrial.

They just overturned the punishment and gave him life