Jury consulted Bible to conclude death penalty

by generaldecay | October 15, 2009 at 12:12 pm

324 views | 44 Recommendations | 24 comments

The Texas jury didn't hesitate to find Khristian Oliver guilty of shooting and bludgeoning an elderly man to death. Oliver had stood over his bleeding victim, repeatedly hitting him in the head with a rifle butt before robbing his house. But then came the difficult decision over whether to sentence Oliver to death, and that's when the Bibles came into their own.

Words fail me. Almost. Here is a case of a man who was sentenced to death because of what jurors read from the bible. The bible.

A clutch of jurors huddled in the corner with one reading aloud from the Book of Numbers: "The murderer shall surely be put to death" and "The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer." Another juror highlighted passages which she showed to a fellow juror: "And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, the murderer shall surely be put to death."

This is about the most shocking example of the encroachment of religion on state proceedings I have ever come across. The US has a rule of law which determines whether or not the accused should be sentenced to death. The bible and whatever the hell it says (pun intended) is not relevant to this process.

Ten years later Oliver, now 32, is just three weeks from execution. Two appeals courts have rejected his pleas for the jury's death sentence in 1999 to be overturned on the grounds it was improperly influenced by references to the Bible. Some of the jurors have made no secret of the part their religious beliefs played in reaching their decision but the US supreme court has refused to take up a case that has been condemned as "a travesty".

It's a world gone mad. Is (isn't) the sensible voice in America resolutely opposed to this dangerous conjoining of church and state?!

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

Sputnic

at 13:28 on October 15th, 2009

I know what you are saying BUT is he any less guilty ?

generaldecay

at 13:38 on October 15th, 2009

His guilt isn't the issue. It's the fact that bibles are allowed to guide verdicts in a court of law that bothers me.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 14:04 on October 15th, 2009

Evidently, defendant could not prove its case. Nevertheless, in this Guide to Texas death penalty law, and I am not a lawyer, it seems defendant would have been sentenced to death for the crime committed. So why take out the Bible -- is anybody's guess -- but I think there is more to this than meets the eye -- and without further research -- I don't have an explanation for it.

generaldecay

at 11:09 on October 22nd, 2009

Rhonda, apologies for the delay in replying. To me, the issue is not whether or not the defendant was guilty (he almost certainly was) or whether or not he would have received the death penalty under state law (he almost certainly would) but the fact that a jury, in a court of law, was allowed to use the bible to make that decision. The measures in these cases are clear in law - there is no need for religion.

platoismyname (not verified)

at 21:27 on October 24th, 2009

Perhaps they felt a personal need to justify the sentence to themselves. It's not an easy thing to kill a man, nor should it be. It is for this reason, however, that this self-rationalization is quite immoral in my eyes, especially when they call what they interpreted with their preconceptions divine law. I'm a devout Catholic by the way, so my opinion is not just some personal attack on religion, nor one called forth from my own moral preconceptions, but one derived from my own religious sense. I would like to add that using the legal system and its norms to rationalize one's own personal choice to sentence a man to death is just as immoral as using Holy Scripture: one must be fully present to make such a choice, not in the far-off redoubts of external rationalization. A hard heart must never put a man to death.

Amy Judd

at 15:16 on October 15th, 2009

Wow, what century are we in?

The_Cynic

at 16:53 on October 15th, 2009

In the US red states or the rest of the world, Amy?

generaldecay

at 11:09 on October 22nd, 2009

Circa 1847 by the looks of it.

Roy C

at 18:07 on October 15th, 2009

When you have to think about life and death, you weigh factors outside of the law, intangibles.

He was guilty and deserved the death penalty under the law. Could have had the same result under Castro or Stalin.

Looking at the Bible as an aid to reflect on your conscience is perfectly legitimate.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 18:52 on October 15th, 2009

"Looking at the Bible as an aid to reflect on your conscience is perfectly legitimate."

Perhaps, but not by jurors who are 'huddled' in a corner of a courtroom (IMO). In other words, neither the time or place:)!

generaldecay

at 11:11 on October 22nd, 2009

Rhonda, precisely. Do what you have to do for your conscience in your own time. The measures for these cases are clearly set out in law. There is no need for a bible in a courtroom and it is completely inappropriate. Besides, it seems that this was more than conscience-clearing - these jurors were actually using the bible to decide what to do, irrespective of what it says in law.

rng

at 18:47 on October 15th, 2009

Oh goody! Can we rule to use stonings. turning people to pillars of salt and smoting them with an ass' jawbone. Or can we just have asses passing verdict. Sheesh

It is a SECULAR court, not a religious tribunal. Perhaps we should remind them of that, We don't consult the bible but the penal code. The result may be the same but the process of determination matters.

generaldecay

at 11:13 on October 22nd, 2009

Hey, there is nothing wrong with turning people to pillars of salt and you know it! Particularly if they commit crime on a Sunday.

It is a SECULAR court, not a religious tribunal...The result may be the same but the process of determination matters.

Yes, yes, and agreed agreed.

Roy C

at 18:57 on October 15th, 2009

Oh, goody! Now we know you don't know the Bible or Christianiy.

First of all, if they were Christians, and I assume that they were, RNG, then they consider the New Testament to be the operational part of the Bible.

Nowhere in the New Testament does anyone turn to salt for refusing to not look back on a city that permitted not gay sex, but male rape, as a matter of fact.

Nowhere in the New Testament is stoning made OK. In fact, Jesus say that he who is without sin should cast the first stone as an indictment of capital punishment for adultery.

So, RNG, why don't you refresh yourself about the New Testament and what Christians believe before condemning them?

Condemnation out of ignorance is not conscionable for secularist who aren't Marxist nor for Christians who really take the Golden Rule seriously.

rng

at 19:23 on October 15th, 2009

Roy , Christians don't reject the old Testament - news flash. They add the New for a contextual interpretation - which rationally is as about as cogent as accepting the flat earth and a circumnavigation. Classic trap. When Christians refer to justice they turn to the old Testament. When they want a way out and forgiveness they turn to to the new. I have a theology degree too - you? Please try that nonsense on someone else

Also sophistry and distractionist, anyway. In passing verdict in a secular court - bible or penal code?

The sweet sounds of silence...

Roy C

at 20:45 on October 15th, 2009

Don't "reject", but the "eye for an eye" of the Old Testament is replaced by the NewTestament's

"love thy neighbor as thyself".

The whole Civil Rights movement and the anti-slavery and our human rights are all based on the New Testament understanding.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 19:27 on October 15th, 2009

In effect then, Christians are referring to the Torah. The Law: The First Five Books.

rng

at 19:46 on October 15th, 2009

Justice or forgiveness. It has always been contextual for Christians - if this then that, if that then this.

Christianity and contextual convenience are married at the hip.

Correction - Modernist (and American) Christianity and contextual convenience are married at the hip.

Whoops, I went contextual myself. American Christianity and the Testaments. akin to the Ten Commandments and Hollywood, derivative and commercialized at best

Roy C

at 20:47 on October 15th, 2009

What specific training do you have in Christianity?

I was raised by Catholics and Protestants, Catholic and Quaker school. You have a lot of generalizations about Christians that seem to reflect a lack of first-hand knowledge of what Christian doctrine is.

Sputnic

at 23:51 on October 15th, 2009

Confused by the sounds of things

Hugh Askew

at 00:25 on October 16th, 2009

Interesting. Very, very interesting.

Can anyone honestly say, that were the circumstances reversed, that they would be wailing and moaning about the intrusion of "religion"?

Suppose the jury had decided, based on the Bible, that the man deserved mercy? Would you decry that decision? Would the legality of that choice be questioned?

Come, come, stand and declare yourself.

generaldecay

at 11:15 on October 22nd, 2009

Hugh, apologies for the delay in responding.

I can honestly say that I was so appalled to read that this jury consulted a bible to reach a decision, that the decision for me became immaterial. If they had decided to forgo the death penalty because of whatever they read in the bible, my reaction would be the same.

There is no place for a bible in the decision making processes of a court of law.

nanute

at 03:01 on October 16th, 2009

Is this man forgiven by his "savior"? " Let he amonst you who has not sinned, cast the first stone." Now that's a testament, though I don't know which one. I had the unfortunate experience of attending indoctrination at Catholic School. The problem is the Nuns couldn't beat the faith into my thick head.