Is Using the Bible in Jury Deliberations Justifiable?

[Loren Booda]

Here in the US, a man got his death sentence commuted to life because the jury had conferred with the Bible. Is this no different than if they had shared an article in Playboy magazine on the death penalty?

 

[wasteofo2]

I don't suppose so, since you don't put your hand on Playboy and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you Hugh Heffner.

Face it, America's a country with lots of religious fundamentalists in the population and government, and they sure do like their bible. I believe I saw a poll not too long ago showing that just under half of the American population believed in the book of Genesis of creationism verbatim, totally disregarding the "theory" of evolution. In a system where we entrust judgements of life and death to a jury of a man's peers, and his peers are deeply religious, how can they be expected to act besides in a deeply religious manner? That's democracy afterall...

 

[SOS2008]

Perhaps to be tried by one's peers would mean the jury should reference what the person on trial believes in?

In relation to, and before this question was posed, I was wondering about swearing on the Bible in court and the swearing in of presidents etc. with regard to separation of church and state. For many people who do not believe in the Bible, or do not believe the Bible to be literal, what good is it to swear on this book? The confusion with ethics, morals, values, social mores, and religious beliefs is interesting.

I would prefer a jury with ethics, logic, and reasoning over interpretation of the Bible if I were on trial.

 

[wasteofo2]

Perhaps to be tried by one's peers would mean the jury should reference what the person on trial believes in?

A jury of pedophiles judging other pedophiles? A jury of all muslims for muslim criminals? Who would decide if someone is your peer or not? Would you get to decide your jury? Would the court's judge get to hand-pick the jury based on whom he thought were your peers?

In relation to, and before this question was posed, I was wondering about swearing on the Bible in court and the swearing in of presidents etc. with regard to separation of church and state. For many people who do not believe in the Bible, or do not believe the Bible to be literal, what good is it to swear on this book? The confusion with ethics, morals, values, social mores, and religious beliefs is interesting.

Well, again, America's quite a Christian nation, as is clearly evident to you. This is what happens in a real Democracy, the will of the peopole dictates the actions of the government...

I would prefer a jury with ethics, logic, and reasoning over interpretation of the Bible if I were on trial.

That's unfortunate, because you live in a Democracy, not a society of ethics, logic and reason, but a society of popular sovereignty. In America, everyone's considered your peer as far as jury selection goes - hell, Karl Rove couldn't make an appointment on one of those CNN shows today cause HE had jury duty. Talk about egalitarian...

 

[SOS2008]

In America, everyone's considered your peer as far as jury selection goes.

Apparently you haven't followed recent trials (such as Michael Jackson's) and the process of jury selection.

 

[wasteofo2]

Apparently you haven't followed recent trials (such as Michael Jackson's) and the process of jury selection.

You're right, I haven't followed the Michael Jackson trial, or any celebrity trial for that matter, have they picked people with abusive fathers whom have had immense plastic surgery to be Michael Jackson's jurers?

 

[russ_watters]

In relation to, and before this question was posed, I was wondering about swearing on the Bible in court and the swearing in of presidents etc. with regard to separation of church and state. For many people who do not believe in the Bible, or do not believe the Bible to be literal, what good is it to swear on this book? The confusion with ethics, morals, values, social mores, and religious beliefs is interesting.

Using the Bible is customary and is the choice of the person being sworn in. If it has more meaning to a person, they can choose to be sworn in on a copy of Moby Dick.

 

[Mazuz]

Perhaps to be tried by one's peers would mean the jury should reference what the person on trial believes in?

In relation to, and before this question was posed, I was wondering about swearing on the Bible in court and the swearing in of presidents etc. with regard to separation of church and state. For many people who do not believe in the Bible, or do not believe the Bible to be literal, what good is it to swear on this book? The confusion with ethics, morals, values, social mores, and religious beliefs is interesting.

I would prefer a jury with ethics, logic, and reasoning over interpretation of the Bible if I were on trial.

I agree, if only ppl were rational...

 

[russ_watters]

Re: the OP -

Here in the US, a man got his death sentence commuted to life because the jury had conferred with the Bible. Is this no different than if they had shared an article in Playboy magazine on the death penalty?

Actually, basing their decision on an article in Playboy (a relevant article) would be disallowed as well, but for a different reason: bias. That's why juries are sequestered.

Basing a decision on a Bible passage would be both a bias issue and an establishment clause issue.

 

[kyleb]

Makes sense to me. Obiously you can't drag in an "expert" to argue for you in jury dilberation, so atoritative text should be out as well. This goes for the Bible or say Dr. Phill. Obviously, if none of the other jurors have respect for the opinion of Dr. Phill then it "is no, harm no foul"; but if they are swayed by another jurors atempt to exploit what might be considered "expert opinion" then the deliberation has been tainted.

 

[SOS2008]

You're right, I haven't followed the Michael Jackson trial, or any celebrity trial for that matter, have they picked people with abusive fathers whom have had immense plastic surgery to be Michael Jackson's jurers?

Good-un I don't follow legal issues because of celebrities, and only pay just enough attention to learn interesting things like:

Using the Bible is customary and is the choice of the person being sworn in. If it has more meaning to a person, they can choose to be sworn in on a copy of Moby Dick.

I heard this somewhere or another, but never knew if it was true--interesting.

 

[kat]

Here in the US, a man got his death sentence commuted to life because the jury had conferred with the Bible. Is this no different than if they had shared an article in Playboy magazine on the death penalty?

I'd like a few more details...Starting with who got his death sentence commute to life?




I don't know about other states, but Maine no longer has you swear upon the bible..or to God.

 

[Loren Booda]

kat, try http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7329675/. Notice the Biblical paradox "He who kills a man shall be put to death."

 

[fifiki]

Here in the US, a man got his death sentence commuted to life because the jury had conferred with the Bible. Is this no different than if they had shared an article in Playboy magazine on the death penalty?

Well, they can't even bring in a copy of the dictionary without court order.

In relation to, and before this question was posed, I was wondering about swearing on the Bible in court and the swearing in of presidents etc. with regard to separation of church and state. For many people who do not believe in the Bible, or do not believe the Bible to be literal, what good is it to swear on this book? The confusion with ethics, morals, values, social mores, and religious beliefs is interesting.

In the US at least for the most party, all that is required is that the witness, before testifying declare that he/she will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation so that the witness is impressed with the knowledge and importance of his/her duty to testify truthfully.

So Bible is not required.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm pretty much with wasteofo2 on this. It's just the way it goes.
And I don't quite see what's wrong with them taking a look at the bible either. These religious individuals are set to make a life or death decision and wish spiritual/moral guidance in making that decision. Where's the problem?
The other one I don't understand is how the ten comandments being displayed in a courtroom is a violation of church and state. If the judge were to ask you to say hail marys over it or kneel before it then I can see, but it just being there?

 

[fifiki]

I'm pretty much with wasteofo2 on this. It's just the way it goes.
And I don't quite see what's wrong with them taking a look at the bible either. These religious individuals are set to make a life or death decision and wish spiritual/moral guidance in making that decision. Where's the problem?
The other one I don't understand is how the ten comandments being displayed in a courtroom is a violation of church and state. If the judge were to ask you to say hail marys over it or kneel before it then I can see, but it just being there?

Juries are ONLY to consider the evidence admitted at trial and the law as given in the jury instructions. Having a bible could be very prejudicial. Also it probably wasn't properly received into evidence. The court must first give jury instructions, which very likely wasn't given with respect to the bible. The jury must accept the court's legal definitions and receive clarifications only from the court and not from outside sources. The Bible was extraneous information and so it was improper for them to have used it. This is especially the case here when who knows without the bible he might not have received the death penalty. Futher this could be constitutionally improper since they might have been basing their death sentence on something other than evidence brought into court. It may have improperly influenced the jurors. That's more than enough to declare that conferring with a Bible by the jury is improper.

As to the Ten Commandments--establishment clause.

 

[Moonbear]

Juries are ONLY to consider the evidence admitted at trial and the law as given in the jury instructions. Having a bible could be very prejudicial. Also it probably wasn't properly received into evidence. The court must first give jury instructions, which very likely wasn't given with respect to the bible. The jury must accept the court's legal definitions and receive clarifications only from the court and not from outside sources. The Bible was extraneous information and so it was improper for them to have used it. This is especially the case here when who knows without the bible he might not have received the death penalty. Futher this could be constitutionally improper since they might have been basing their death sentence on something other than evidence brought into court. It may have improperly influenced the jurors. That's more than enough to declare that conferring with a Bible by the jury is improper.

As to the Ten Commandments--establishment clause.

When I first heard this, that was my interpretation of the reasons as well. It shouldn't matter what they conferred, if it was any source outside of the evidence presented as part of the trial, it would have been inappropriate to use it to guide their decision.

However, while in this case the Bible was physically brought in, how would it be handled had a group of the jurors had passages committed to memory and considered that in their deliberations without the book itself present?

I also am left wondering (although it is only pondering not directly addressing the legalities of the case in the OP), how would it have been handled if instead of using Bible passages to decide on the death penalty, they had used the Bible to lessen the penalty to a life sentence?

And the final question I have is did the jury really use the Bible to decide to give the death penalty, or had they already decided the death penalty was appropriate under the law and were consulting the Bible to assuage their own personal feelings that the death penalty conflicted with their religious views? I think it's pretty common that people look to find what they want to find in the Bible; there's always a passage in there somewhere to justify just about anything if you read it completely out of context.

 

[russ_watters]

The other one I don't understand is how the ten comandments being displayed in a courtroom is a violation of church and state. If the judge were to ask you to say hail marys over it or kneel before it then I can see, but it just being there?

It depends a little on the context. The most obvious case is this: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/ten.commandments/

The Alabama supreme court chief justice put a 5,000 lb granite monument of the 10 Commandments in the rotunda of the courthouse. I don't think any public funding was involved, but the message it projects when the 10 Commandments dominate the Rotunda of a courthouse is: 'this is our law' - and it isn't (it might be based partly on it, but that's not it). The implication is that anyone who goes into that court will be judged according to the Ten Commandments and not the laws of the US. Now, that's only an implication, but in reality, Judge Moore really did conduct court that way. He asked people their religions and admonished them for not being Christian. He stated explicitly that he was bound by the Bible above the Constitution. And he'd have to be thinking that way to do what he did, since it was obvious that what he was doing was a violation of the Constitution - he knew it and did it anyway.

Its ironic to me that he lost his job for the symbol of judicial misconduct and not for his actual misconduct (though his actual misconduct was also cited). But even without the added misconduct, putting the Ten Commandments in the rotunda was a violation itself.

 

[wasteofo2]

I'm pretty much with wasteofo2 on this. It's just the way it goes.
And I don't quite see what's wrong with them taking a look at the bible either. These religious individuals are set to make a life or death decision and wish spiritual/moral guidance in making that decision. Where's the problem?
The other one I don't understand is how the ten comandments being displayed in a courtroom is a violation of church and state.

That's pretty funny, since I actually don't agree with anything you said there.

I believe that using the bible in a court case to make any judgements is hugely wrong, and that displaying things that say YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GOD BEFORE ME, in a courthouse clearly DOES violate the establishment clause. My point wasn't that it's great and should be allowed, but simply that you can't expect anything else from a religiously fundamental society in which random groups of citizens are called on to make life and death decisions. If you have a society filled with religious zealots, and you call random people for jury duty, you can be sure you'll get some zealots, and you can be sure they'll act based on their religion primarily.

Please excuse the horrible writing found above, I'm on some funky-ass allergy medicine and I'm pretty out of it.

 

[fifiki]

When I first heard this, that was my interpretation of the reasons as well. It shouldn't matter what they conferred, if it was any source outside of the evidence presented as part of the trial, it would have been inappropriate to use it to guide their decision.

However, while in this case the Bible was physically brought in, how would it be handled had a group of the jurors had passages committed to memory and considered that in their deliberations without the book itself present?

I also am left wondering (although it is only pondering not directly addressing the legalities of the case in the OP), how would it have been handled if instead of using Bible passages to decide on the death penalty, they had used the Bible to lessen the penalty to a life sentence?

Certainly the jurors are expected to rely on their common sense, general knowledge, observations, experiences, morals, etc. So they can use their own personal beliefs, but the problem is that they simply cannot use text that are not introduced at trial. That's why the courts have a system called voir dire. So that the court to ask them about religious beliefs that may interfere with jurors following court instructions. Using your own personal beliefs to decide a case is different from using the Bible to persuade or coerce someone else into voting your way is another matter. It really depends on how it was used. It also depends on what each state requires in terms of weighing certain factors in death penalty cases. I think its an issue is whether something is being used that overrides the law.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Juries are ONLY to consider the evidence admitted at trial and the law as given in the jury instructions. Having a bible could be very prejudicial. Also it probably wasn't properly received into evidence. The court must first give jury instructions, which very likely wasn't given with respect to the bible. The jury must accept the court's legal definitions and receive clarifications only from the court and not from outside sources. The Bible was extraneous information and so it was improper for them to have used it. This is especially the case here when who knows without the bible he might not have received the death penalty. Futher this could be constitutionally improper since they might have been basing their death sentence on something other than evidence brought into court. It may have improperly influenced the jurors. That's more than enough to declare that conferring with a Bible by the jury is improper.

First... I believe that it was said they changed from a death penalty to life instead due to their confering with the bible, unless I am mistaken or the author of this thread is mistaken.
Secondly... I don't really see how reading something that has nothing to do with the trial in and of itself should be considered to "taint" their decision in some fashion. I don't see what it has to do with interpretation of US and state law either.
Moonbear also has a good point. All of those people brought their religious beliefs in through those doors with them and it didn't really matter if they had a bible because they could still just as easily be making their decisions based on their own interpretation of the bible from memory.
It may be against the letter of the law, but I still don't really see the harm unless these people are a bunch of wackos that are solely judging based off of the bible and paying no attention to the law and case itself. It's a pretty hot issue whether or not the death penalty is an ethical practice and I don't think I can look down upon a person for feeling they need some moral or ethical guidance in making such a dicision.

That's pretty funny, since I actually don't agree with anything you said there.

I didn't say that it was great actually. I said I agree that it's just the way it goes. Which I believe is more or less what you said. I then added more of my opinion and said nothing of using the bible to make court decisions but rather that I don't see what's wrong with a person confering for moral and ethical support when deciding whether or not to put a man to death.
Perhaps you don't agree but I think there's a vast difference there.
And I'd like to add that I am not Christian nor would I personally look to the bible for moral guidance, I am just sympathetic to other people's feelings, flaws, shortcomings, or what ever you would like to call them.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Its ironic to me that he lost his job for the symbol of judicial misconduct and not for his actual misconduct (though his actual misconduct was also cited). But even without the added misconduct, putting the Ten Commandments in the rotunda was a violation itself.

Yes this is the case I was thinking of. I was unaware of his misconduct in running the courtroom though. At the time I had not agreed that it was a violation of the establishment clause but I did agree that he should be terminated for his failure to cooperate with a court order stating that the monument was to be removed.

 

[fifiki]

First... I believe that it was said they changed from a death penalty to life instead due to their confering with the bible, unless I am mistaken or the author of this thread is mistaken.
Secondly... I don't really see how reading something that has nothing to do with the trial in and of itself should be considered to "taint" their decision in some fashion. I don't see what it has to do with interpretation of US and state law either.
Moonbear also has a good point. All of those people brought their religious beliefs in through those doors with them and it didn't really matter if they had a bible because they could still just as easily be making their decisions based on their own interpretation of the bible from memory.
It may be against the letter of the law, but I still don't really see the harm unless these people are a bunch of wackos that are solely judging based off of the bible and paying no attention to the law and case itself. It's a pretty hot issue whether or not the death penalty is an ethical practice and I don't think I can look down upon a person for feeling they need some moral or ethical guidance in making such a dicision.

First, I already stated why bringing in the bible may do harm to a court case. You ask what is the harm? Well someone might be given the death penalty instead of life. Someone who judges a case based on "an eye for an eye" and perhaps convinces others via bible passages to vote that way too may do irreparable damage. Second you don't see the taint, but a case should be decided based on the law. However, that doesn't mean personal beliefs should not be considered; no one said that a person can't bring their beliefs to bear because that would be impossible, but the difference is bringing in extraneous text. It might seem harmless you to, but do you really know that for sure? This is a person's life at stake. When a juror decides a case based on an extraneous text; that certainly does affect how a case is handled. You don't think certain passages might conflict with the law? You don't think "whoever kills a man must be put to death" might be prejudicial into changing a sentence of life into one of death?

How can you know whether someone bringing a bible into jury deliberations won't quote passage after passage and totally ignore the law entirely? Like I said before, that's why we have voir dire.

 

[Moonbear]

It may be against the letter of the law, but I still don't really see the harm unless these people are a bunch of wackos that are solely judging based off of the bible and paying no attention to the law and case itself.

Well, the judge and jury are supposed to be bound by the letter of the law. And the potential harm (whether it was what happened in this case or not, we have no way to know) is as you point out, that if the jury begins to judge based off the bible rather than according to the law and the case itself, it undermines our legal system and the right to a fair trial. I suspect this finding will give the person convincted a pretty good justfication for appeal.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

How can you know whether someone bringing a bible into jury deliberations won't quote passage after passage and totally ignore the law entirely? Like I said before, that's why we have voir dire.

Exactly. Due to the screening process it is far less likely that such a person would make it through into the jury. Aswell if such a person were to somehow make it through I'd expect they would not be received well by the other jurors and likely be removed from the jury were the person to harangue them with bible verse.

However, that doesn't mean personal beliefs should not be considered; no one said that a person can't bring their beliefs to bear because that would be impossible, but the difference is bringing in extraneous text.

More than that jurors have the right to make decisions based on their personal beliefs and conscience. It's one of the main points of the trial by jury. But why does "extraneous text" pose a problem? Simply for the fact that it is a written document?
Since we are going on hypotheticals here what if a priest was called to jury duty and his natural instinct kicks in while he's in deliberation and he begins to relate everything to verse and his religion? Is this then a violation of the separation of church and state? Should he be removed from the jury because he is siting bible verse in deliberation? Is he somehow now less than an average citizen and unable to participate in a jury? Or does this only apply to the written word?


At any rate... my real question here is mainly in regards to what latitude if any should be given to jurors who feel they need ethical or moral support for a decision regarding the death sentance? Or do you feel that they should not be allowed to participate in the jury if they would feel they need support in making such a decision?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Well, the judge and jury are supposed to be bound by the letter of the law.

From what I understand of jury nullification, no they are not.
----edit-----
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Video/050329/nn_pwms_bible_050329.275w.jpg
I somehow doubt that he will want to appeal this one.
----and again----
I just saw that it said he was saved from death row.
He was saved because of the technicality yes.

 

[fifiki]

Exactly. Due to the screening process it is far less likely that such a person would make it through into the jury. Aswell if such a person were to somehow make it through I'd expect they would not be received well by the other jurors and likely be removed from the jury were the person to harangue them with bible verse.

More than that jurors have the right to make decisions based on their personal beliefs and conscience. It's one of the main points of the trial by jury. But why does "extraneous text" pose a problem? Simply for the fact that it is a written document?
Since we are going on hypotheticals here what if a priest was called to jury duty and his natural instinct kicks in while he's in deliberation and he begins to relate everything to verse and his religion? Is this then a violation of the separation of church and state? Should he be removed from the jury because he is siting bible verse in deliberation? Is he somehow now less than an average citizen and unable to participate in a jury? Or does this only apply to the written word?

At any rate... my real question here is mainly in regards to what latitude if any should be given to jurors who feel they need ethical or moral support for a decision regarding the death sentance? Or do you feel that they should not be allowed to participate in the jury if they would feel they need support in making such a decision?

I have a distinct feeling that you have not really read my above post at all. Let me summarize: prejudice, possibly unconstitutional, bias, deciding based on something other than law...

As I have said before, we are not to totally disassociate a person from their personal beliefs when they become a juror. In fact the courts are relying on their common sense, morals and perceptions. The court relies on it when the jurors observe things during the trial, evidence presented, the credibility of witnesses, etc.

I don't quite understand what you were trying to say in the first paragraph of the quote above. You are making a lot of assumptions about what people will or will not do. This is a court system, it cannot simply arbitrarily go by what one believes might happen but to have a system designed to protect people's liberty and ensure as much fairness as possible. The courts try not to underestimate the importance of biases and underlying perceptions which each juror comes into the court with.

That is why the lawyer and the judge gives all of this careful consideration This is a very important element in skilled advocacy. So voir dire is devoted to try to get as much information as possible concerning these beliefs, values, biases of each juror. Sometimes those long held beliefs don't die too easily, even in the face of contradictory information. Jurors are to based their decisions on their common sense and beliefs and most importantly on the FACTS of the case. Sometimes no matter how much evidence you present, people hold on to those long held beliefs. The danger of having a bible with them is that they will rely on the bible in place of the facts and the evidence. So it is very likely that a priest will be excused via the use of a preemptory challenge and they are excused from jury duty based merely on their profession. Also, sometimes, people fall into the habit of relying on someone else to make decisions for them.

The bible has direct references to the death penalty and undeniably considered to some to be their guiding posts as laws. Therefore, this can be considered legal content. The court did not authorize the introduction of the bible. So in this case, it was improperly before the jury and since it was extraneous, outside information, the court must take this into consideration. The accused might have been unfairly prejudiced by it's introduction. It's not just the mere fact that it's "extraneous information", it's improper if it influenced the verdict to the detriment of the accused.

Typically, in considering a death penalty, the juror must be convinced without a reasonable doubt that death is the appropriate sentence and MUST NOT be influenced by passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor. Also, they must consider all RELEVANT EVIDENCE. The Bible may have been a large factor in influencing a juror to vote for death instead of life. So if a juror introduces a bible to show to another juror that a death sentence is the proper course--there is a good chance that that juror was influenced to vote for death. There is a very strict process for this.

 

[russ_watters]

From what I understand of jury nullification, no they are not.

Jury nullification is no so simple a question, but it does no apply to this case. The misconduct of the jury was not in overturning the law on the crime in question, but rather one of procedure. Incompetence vs misconduct. Either way, its a flaw in our legal system, and one that is very tough to deal with.

 

[SOS2008]

I just received a Jury Summons today (of all days, April Fools day, huh?). When I went to vote this last election, they didn't show me as registered, even though I've never moved out of the county etc., so I don't think my vote was counted. In the process of trying to make sure my registration was updated to be correct, it no doubt put me in the pool for jury duty.

Oh and I should add: I need to complete a Trial Juror Information form, and Race/Ethnicity/Gender must be indicated "to ensure all people are represented on juries." And guess what, the return envelope does not have pre-paid postage -- you would think the US Postal Service could cover me for at least 37 cents.