![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
saint_monkeyThis story interests me somewhat. First, the situation... Robert Harlan ran a woman off the road, raped her for two hours. When she escaped into a passing samaritan's car, he ran them down, and shot and paralyzed the woman that saved his rape victim. He then left the samaritan to die in her car (she survived) and beat his victim to death. (From the Rocky Mountain news: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3658318,00.html )
His death penalty sentence has now been overturned, because the jury used the bible while deliberating his sentence.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/29/bible.deliberations.ap/index.html
The CNN story neglects to mention that the Lawyers for Mr Harlan brought up the bible in the first place, during a plea for mercy:
From the NYTIMES. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/national/29bible.html )
This fellow was not Abraham. Perhaps it was a ploy? A deliberate suggestion to: "Look to the bible" so that the sentence could be easily challenged and overturned? Suggestions from counsel are not instructions from a judge ... but clearly posed pictures like this one lead me to think that a legal strategem might have been in the works:
(file photo from the Denver Post:)
The case, it seems was thrown out because instead of the jurors bringing up their general knowledge of the particular verses, (which would be okay, a juror's general knowledge is allowed,) they instead brought in an actual Bible and used it as a de facto legal reference, and at that point they drew on a source outside of the evidence. I think though, that since Mr Harlan and hs lawyers made such an issue of Mr Harlan's conversion and faith, that the bible is an ironic tool to use to judge him.
To me though, the problem is only halfway a legal one. The bible is a complex document, written by several authors over millennia (if you believe the apocrypha) and in lots of cases, it's completely contradictory. The jurors looked up verses in the bible that suited their views, and used those to support their argument. There was never a chance for a theologist to offer any opposing religious viewpoints. The jury says that the verses in Leviticus were brought up because one juror said that the death penalty would conflict with his christian faith. They cited the "eye for an eye" passage as a response, and even with several actual bibles, somehow managed to overlook the fact that Jesus weighed in on "an eye for an eye" during the sermon on the mount.
Matthew 5, Verses 38-44:
I wonder, had the doubtful juror been allowed to read that verse, would he or she still vote for death?
This is the problem with law made from religious edict, as they do in Iran. The text can so easily be taken out of context by someone skillfully quoting scripture for their own purpose, or by someone simply quoting a blind cliche ignorant of it's context or meaning.
And although I am not religious, I grew up that way, and have a great respect for the message that Jesus was trying to get out there. So I am tired, tired, tired, of supposed christians abusing the words of christ again and again, (here I am referring to "Focus on the Family,") and claiming the moral high ground when as I see it, they are acting against their faith.
Post Script: Since this entry is all over the place, I realize that it's hard to tell whether I think it is good or bad that this horrible person isn't going to die. Well, I think that he shouldn't be killed. It isn't sensible, and I've said why before. But I agree withdagoski that this is a lose-lose situation, and that the sentence has been overturned in the worst possible way. I fear the backlash.
His death penalty sentence has now been overturned, because the jury used the bible while deliberating his sentence.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/29/bible.deliberations.ap/index.html
Harlan was sentenced to death in 1995, but defense lawyers learned that five jurors had looked up such Bible verses as "eye for eye, tooth for tooth," copied them and discussed them while deliberating behind closed doors...
...Gov. Bill Owens said Monday's ruling was "demeaning to people of faith and prevents justice from being served."...
...Jay Horowitz, a former assistant U.S. attorney and former University of Denver law professor, said the law bars jurors from considering evidence not presented at trial.
But he noted it was unreasonable to expect them to set aside moral standards when they step into a jury room, though there must be limits. "In fact, people do bring their background and thoughts and impressions, and you can't separate from that, and shouldn't try to," he said.
The conservative Christian group, Focus on the Family, had sharp criticism for the court.
"Today's ruling further confirms that the judicial branch of our government is nearly bereft of any moral foundation," said Tom Minnery, the group's vice president for government and public policy.
The CNN story neglects to mention that the Lawyers for Mr Harlan brought up the bible in the first place, during a plea for mercy:
From the NYTIMES. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/national/29bible.html )
Lawyers for Mr. Harlan also specifically urged the jurors to consider biblical wisdom, according to the Supreme Court's decision, with a request that they find mercy in their hearts "as God ultimately took mercy on Abraham."
This fellow was not Abraham. Perhaps it was a ploy? A deliberate suggestion to: "Look to the bible" so that the sentence could be easily challenged and overturned? Suggestions from counsel are not instructions from a judge ... but clearly posed pictures like this one lead me to think that a legal strategem might have been in the works:
(file photo from the Denver Post:)
The case, it seems was thrown out because instead of the jurors bringing up their general knowledge of the particular verses, (which would be okay, a juror's general knowledge is allowed,) they instead brought in an actual Bible and used it as a de facto legal reference, and at that point they drew on a source outside of the evidence. I think though, that since Mr Harlan and hs lawyers made such an issue of Mr Harlan's conversion and faith, that the bible is an ironic tool to use to judge him.
To me though, the problem is only halfway a legal one. The bible is a complex document, written by several authors over millennia (if you believe the apocrypha) and in lots of cases, it's completely contradictory. The jurors looked up verses in the bible that suited their views, and used those to support their argument. There was never a chance for a theologist to offer any opposing religious viewpoints. The jury says that the verses in Leviticus were brought up because one juror said that the death penalty would conflict with his christian faith. They cited the "eye for an eye" passage as a response, and even with several actual bibles, somehow managed to overlook the fact that Jesus weighed in on "an eye for an eye" during the sermon on the mount.
Matthew 5, Verses 38-44:
[38] Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
[39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
[40] And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
[41] And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
[42] Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
[43] Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
[44] But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
I wonder, had the doubtful juror been allowed to read that verse, would he or she still vote for death?
This is the problem with law made from religious edict, as they do in Iran. The text can so easily be taken out of context by someone skillfully quoting scripture for their own purpose, or by someone simply quoting a blind cliche ignorant of it's context or meaning.
And although I am not religious, I grew up that way, and have a great respect for the message that Jesus was trying to get out there. So I am tired, tired, tired, of supposed christians abusing the words of christ again and again, (here I am referring to "Focus on the Family,") and claiming the moral high ground when as I see it, they are acting against their faith.
Post Script: Since this entry is all over the place, I realize that it's hard to tell whether I think it is good or bad that this horrible person isn't going to die. Well, I think that he shouldn't be killed. It isn't sensible, and I've said why before. But I agree with
dagoski that this is a lose-lose situation, and that the sentence has been overturned in the worst possible way. I fear the backlash.
