View Full Version : The best reason to ban jury trials


robbie
29-03-2005, 16:57
Colorado Court Bars Execution Because Jurors Consulted Bible
By KIRK JOHNSON

Published: March 29, 2005

DENVER, March 28 - In a sharply divided ruling, Colorado's highest court on Monday upheld a lower court's decision throwing out the sentence of a man who was given the death penalty after jurors consulted the Bible in reaching a verdict. The Bible, the court said, constituted an improper outside influence and a reliance on what the court called a "higher authority."

"The judicial system works very hard to emphasize the rarified, solemn and sequestered nature of jury deliberations," the majority said in a 3-to-2 decision by a panel of the Colorado Supreme Court. "Jurors must deliberate in that atmosphere without the aid or distraction of extraneous texts."

The ruling involved the conviction of Robert Harlan, who was found guilty in 1995 of raping and murdering a cocktail waitress near Denver. After Mr. Harlan's conviction, the judge in the case - as Colorado law requires - sent the jury off to deliberate about the death penalty with an instruction to think beyond the narrow confines of the law. Each juror, the judge told the panel, must make an "individual moral assessment," in deciding whether Mr. Harlan should live.

The jurors voted unanimously for death. The State Supreme Court's decision changes that sentence to life in prison without parole.

In the decision on Monday, the dissenting judges said the majority had confused the internal codes of right and wrong that juries are expected to possess in such weighty moral matters with the outside influences that are always to be avoided, like newspaper articles or television programs about the case. The jurors consulted Bibles, the minority said, not to look for facts or alternative legal interpretations, but for wisdom.

"The biblical passages the jurors discussed constituted either a part of the jurors' moral and religious precepts or their general knowledge, and thus were relevant to their court-sanctioned moral assessment," the minority wrote.

Legal experts said that Colorado was unusual in its language requiring jurors in capital felony cases to explicitly consult a moral compass. Most states that have restored the death penalty weave in a discussion of moral factors, lawyers said, along with the burden that jurors must decide whether aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors in voting on execution.

"In Colorado it's a more distinct instruction," said Bob Grant, who was the prosecutor in the Harlan case. Mr. Grant said no decision had been made yet on whether to appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

Legal scholars say the connection between hard legal logic and the softer, deeper world of values is always present in jury rooms, whether acknowledged or not.

"The court says we're asking you to be moral men and women, to make a moral judgment of the right thing to do," said Thane Rosenbaum, a professor of law at Fordham University School of Law in New York City, and author of the book "The Myth of Moral Justice: Why Our Legal System Fails to Do What's Right" (HarperCollins, 2004). "But then we say the juror cheated because he brought in a book that forms the basis of his moral universe," Professor Rosenbaum said. "The thing is, he would have done it anyway, in his head."

Other legal experts say the Colorado decision touches on an issue that courts do not like to talk about: that jurors, under traditions dating to the days of English common law, can consider higher authority all they want, and can convict or acquit using whatever internal thoughts and discussions they consider appropriate.

In this instance, lawyers said, there was simply a clearer trail of evidence, with admissions by the jurors during Mr. Harlan's appeal that Bibles had been used in their discussion. One juror testified she studied Romans and Leviticus, including Leviticus 24, which includes the famous articulation of Old Testament justice: "eye for eye, tooth for tooth."

Professor Howard J. Vogel, who teaches ethics at Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul and has a master's degree in theology as well as a law degree, said, "I don't think it's a religious text that's the problem here, but rather whether something is being used that trumps the law of the state."

The Bible is hardly monolithic about what constitutes justice. Some legal experts say the jurors might just as easily have found guidance that led them to vote to spare Mr. Harlan's life. 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."

The lawyers also made several references to Mr. Harlan's soul and his habit of reading the Bible with his father, the court said.

Kathleen Lord, a lawyer for Mr. Harlan, did not return repeated calls.

Mr. Harlan was convicted of kidnapping a waitress, Rhonda Maloney, and raping her. She escaped and flagged down a motorist, Jaquie Creazzo. Mr. Harlan caught up with the two women, shot Ms. Creazzo, leaving her paralyzed, then beat and killed Ms. Maloney.

from the Nytimes.com

Cyclone
30-03-2005, 09:54
I don't see a reason to stop using a jury in trials mentioned anywher in that quote?

Carmine
30-03-2005, 10:30
Surely this stands more as a sane and pressing reason to come down hard and without mercy on the intrusion of religion into the workings of secular public institutions.

Whether or not the monster in this particular case found solace from reading the bible or the back of a packet of crisps is simply not relevant in the course of jusitce being seen to be done.

Cyclone
30-03-2005, 10:36
Originally posted by Carmine
Surely this stands more as a sane and pressing reason to come down hard and without mercy on the intrusion of religion into the workings of secular public institutions.

Whether or not the monster in this particular case found solace from reading the bible or the back of a packet of crisps is simply not relevant in the course of jusitce being seen to be done.

this was about the jury using the bible, not the criminal.
And since some jurors will be religous, I don't see why such a big deal was made out of it.

Carmine
30-03-2005, 10:42
Originally posted by Cyclone
And since some jurors will be religous, I don't see why such a big deal was made out of it. It could be argued that a person shouldn't have to fear being judged according to another person's religion. I'd hate to see a jury swayed by a person who's lifestyle offended their religious values and that person sent down as a result rather than on the evidence against them.

I agree that the media attention is a bit odd.

I wonder, was the media seeking to applaud the decision as sane or condemn the rejection of the bible as a reference-point for assessing the merits of the person on trial?

Twiglet
30-03-2005, 10:51
There was an article in The Times yesterday about proposals to get rid of jurys in cases that depended on complex scientific evidence - and instead to use panels made up of judges.

Using a panel of judges would completely go against the principles of a jury trial. A panel of scientists or something similar may be more feasible but it still goes against the 'randomly selected' representative part of the population thing.

I just hope these are just random unrealistic ideas in the run up to the election and will never actually happen.

Cyclone
30-03-2005, 11:49
Originally posted by Carmine
It could be argued that a person shouldn't have to fear being judged according to another person's religion. I'd hate to see a jury swayed by a person who's lifestyle offended their religious values and that person sent down as a result rather than on the evidence against them.

I agree that the media attention is a bit odd.

I wonder, was the media seeking to applaud the decision as sane or condemn the rejection of the bible as a reference-point for assessing the merits of the person on trial?

morallity for some people is based on their religion.
Unless you would allow jurors to be restricted to the same religion as the accused then I don't see how you can disallow it. Although of course any juror that was basing a decision on lifestyle rather than on the facts of the case should be charged with perverting the course of justice.

There are issues with complex scientific or financial trials, whereby the jury is basically incapable of understanding or of forming sound conclusions based on the complex technical nature of the information presented.
And expert witnesses can easily be misleading, such as the Dr who condemned many women to prison by talking rubbish about injuries to children and/or the chances of two cot deaths occuring in the same family.