Death Penalty Tossed Over Bible Verses

[stumbler]

By STEVEN K. PAULSON

DENVER (AP) - The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday threw out the death penalty in a rape-and-murder case because jurors had studied Bible verses such as “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” during deliberations.

On a 3-2 vote, justices ordered Robert Harlan to serve life in prison without parole for kidnapping 25-year-old cocktail waitress Rhonda Maloney in 1994, raping her at gunpoint for two hours and then fatally shooting her.

The jurors in Harlan’s 1995 trial sentenced him to die, but defense lawyers discovered five of them had looked up Bible verses, copied them down and talked about them while deliberating a sentence behind closed doors.

The Supreme Court said “at least one juror in this case could have been influenced by these authoritative passages to vote for the death penalty when he or she may otherwise have voted for a life sentence.”

Assistant District Attorney Michael Goodbee said prosecutors were reviewing the ruling and could ask the state Supreme Court to reconsider or could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
During oral arguments before the Supreme Court last month, defense attorney Kathleen Lord said the jurors had gone outside the law. “They went to the Bible to find out God’s position on capital punishment,” she said.

Prosecutors had argued jurors should be allowed to refer to the Bible or other religious texts during deliberations.

Gov. Bill Owens said the ruling was “demeaning to people of faith and prevents justice from being served.”

---

Full Article

 

[Richardols]

stumbler:

Gov. Bill Owens said the ruling was “demeaning to people of faith and prevents justice from being served.”

Life imprisonment seems pretty just to me.

I can see that Owens isn’t a Catholic - he hasn’t a clue about the Pope’s position on the criteria for imposition of the death penalty. How does failing to kill someone demean Christians?

Thank God we’re Catholics!
_

 

[Lance]

The American courts have become what we fought against in so many wars. They make and enforce their own laws and care nothing about the will of the people or the law as it was intended to be. They interprit the law the way they want it to be.

 

[Richardols]

Lance:

The American courts have become what we fought against in so many wars. They make and enforce their own laws and care nothing about the will of the people or the law as it was intended to be. They interprit the law the way they want it to be.

Err… what does your comment have to do with the case on point?

 

[fix]

If the bible is prohibited, then I would say these courts and judges are without any moral reasoning.

 

[Richardols]

fix:

If the bible is prohibited, then I would say these courts and judges are without any moral reasoning.

How do you know that any of the judges, either on the trial or appeals level, is without moral reasoning? That’s quite a stretch from the facts of the decision.

And, as Catholics, we should applaud the decision even as we might detest the killer and his crime.

 

[Lance]

Richardols, I noticed you posted right after I did. If you are replying to my post, you should know that you are on my ‘ignore’ list because in my opinion you are just here to stir up trouble and never answer a direct question. So don’t expect to see any answers from me to your questions or comments.

 

[Richardols]

Lance:

Richardols, I noticed you posted right after I did. If you are replying to my post, you should know that you are on my ‘ignore’ list because in my opinion you are just here to stir up trouble and never answer a direct question. So don’t expect to see any answers from me to your questions or comments.

Oh, dear, oh, dear. I think I’m going to take out my handkerchief and just have a good cry, sniff, sniff.

 

[fix]

Richardols:

How do you know that any of the judges, either on the trial or appeals level, is without moral reasoning? That’s quite a stretch from the facts of the decision.

And, as Catholics, we should applaud the decision even as we might detest the killer and his crime.

The article states that bible quotes were discussed. If any case is “thrown out” because of such a finding, then I can’t see how there is any moral reasoning here. Why would it be wrong to bring up a quote when deliberating?

 

[Richardols]

fix:

The article states that bible quotes were discussed. If any case is “thrown out” because of such a finding, then I can’t see how there is any moral reasoning here. Why would it be wrong to bring up a quote when deliberating?

It was said that “they went to the Bible to find out God’s position on capital punishment.” The use of the Bible so specifically is what would have made it suspect, I think, and also the fact that they were not relying on the Colorado law and the judge’s instructions, but on an extralegal source of information.

That’s only my opinion, anyway, but I’m glad that the ultimate result was in line with our Church’s position on capital crimes.

 

[rlg94086]

Richardols:

Life imprisonment seems pretty just to me.

I can see that Owens isn’t a Catholic - he hasn’t a clue about the Pope’s position on the criteria for imposition of the death penalty. How does failing to kill someone demean Christians?

Thank God we’re Catholics!
_

Come on Richard…you know you are just baiting. Good Catholics can disagree and struggle with this issue.

What’s interesting to me is that some jury members could have just as easily referred to the Bible and argued against the death penalty. Would the same people be up in arms over that? Does anyone on the forum know any formal rules/legal precedence regarding reference to the Bible by a jury?

God Bless,

Robert.

 

[Lisa_N]

fix:

The article states that bible quotes were discussed. If any case is “thrown out” because of such a finding, then I can’t see how there is any moral reasoning here. Why would it be wrong to bring up a quote when deliberating?

Ironically not only is the ‘an eye for an eye’ not simply a product of Biblical teaching (I understand it’s in Hammurabi’s Code too) but the reasoning behind the statement is to LIMIT punishment, not enforce more stringent punishment. IOW “an eye for an eye” reflects the desire for justice and punishment commensurate with the crime. For example cutting off the hand of a thief would NOT be equivalent punishment. The ignorance of the judiciary amazes me. Didn’t they go to college and take a history class?

Lisa N

 

[fix]

Richardols:

It was said that “they went to the Bible to find out God’s position on capital punishment.” The use of the Bible so specifically is what would have made it suspect, I think, and also the fact that they were not relying on the Colorado law and the judge’s instructions, but on an extralegal source of information.

That’s only my opinion, anyway, but I’m glad that the ultimate result was in line with our Church’s position on capital crimes.

By extra legal you mean our creator?

The Church’s position is that it can’t bind any Catholic to reject the death penalty under pain of sin.

 

[mommy]

Ok, this confuses me, We swear with our hand on a Bible that we as a witness must tell the truth. But those who deliberate the fate of the accused cannot actually open that same book.

…

 

[Richardols]

rlg94086:

Come on Richard…you know you are just baiting. Good Catholics can disagree and struggle with this issue.

No, I disagree. This is not one of those special cases where there’s a question of the justice system being unable to protect us against such a man, and where the death penalty may, under the very narrow circumstances described by the Pope, be invoked. There’s no reason to think that incarceration will be ineffective here. So, I can’t see how any of us (Catholics, anyway) can disagree or struggle over the issue…

To be sure, if it were a case of his having killed some fellow inmates and a prison guard, thus calling into doubt the ability of the prison system to control the man, then we would have reason to debate and struggle over the application of the death penalty.

What’s interesting to me is that some jury members could have just as easily referred to the Bible and argued against the death penalty. Would the same people be up in arms over that?

No one was up in arms. Obviously, the defense appealed the verdict because of what the jury did. If they had used the Bible to argue against the death penalty, you can be sure there wouldn’t have been any appeal!

Does anyone on the forum know any formal rules/legal precedence regarding reference to the Bible by a jury?

I don’t every recall having seen anything here in Arkansas.

 

[Richardols]

fix:

The Church’s position is that it can’t bind any Catholic to reject the death penalty under pain of sin.

Yes, but the Pope and the Catechism have been consistent in saying that the death penalty, today, can be imposed only under very narrow circumstances given the state of modern penology.

 

[fix]

Richardols:

Yes, but the Pope and the Catechism have been consistent in saying that the death penalty, today, can be imposed only under very narrow circumstances given the state of modern penology.

                        INSERTING A PRUDENTIAL JUDGMENT INTO THE CATECHISM
                        
                        That brings us to the policy provision of the treatment in the "Catechism,"                             as given in section 2267:
                        
                        "If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect                             people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such                             means. ... Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the                             state has for effectively preventing crime ... the cases in which the                             execution of the offender is an absolute necessity 'are very rare, if not                             practically non-existent'" (quoting EV 56).
                        
                        How are we to understand this? Avery Cardinal Dulles has noted (in a letter                             to the "National Catholic Register") that a denial of retribution as a                             legitimate purpose of capital punishment would be contrary to the                             traditional teaching of the Church, but this is not, he thinks, what the                             magisterium is doing in the "Catechism."
                        
                        Dulles believes that section 2267 and "Evangelium Vitae" are not Church                             teaching, in the proper meaning of the term, but reflect the "prudential                             judgment" of John Paul II.
                        
                        Whether a society's penal system is capable of protecting its citizens                             adequately without recourse to the death penalty is not really a matter of                             doctrine. It is a matter of the evaluation of the existing social                             situation. One can make a case that our current penal system succeeds in                             this--or that it fails in this.
                        
                        Fr. George Rutler, also writing in the "Register," agrees with Dulles's                             view but is even more critical of what he terms the "problematic" decision                             to put a prudential judgment into a catechetical text. He and Dulles                             emphasize that there is a clear distinction between Church teachings and                             the prudential judgments of a pope.
                        
                        All Catholics must subscribe to the former, but Catholics are free to                             disagree with the latter, since prudential judgments are not under the                             charism of infallibility and are not themselves authoritative                             pronouncements of the magisterium. While they may relate to doctrines of                             faith and morals, they are neither one nor the other.
                        
                        Dunnigan notes that "Catholics are obliged to give 'a religious submission                             of the intellect and will' to the ordinary magisterium, but this duty                             attaches only to doctrines and teachings of the Church. This same duty of                             submission does not attach to the mere prudential judgments of the Church's                             pastors. The conclusion that the circumstances justifying the death penalty                             are 'practically non-existent' is based on a prudential judgment about the                             state of the penal system.
                        
                        "As a result of the fact that a Catholic legitimately might disagree with                             this judgment, it follows that he legitimately might disagree as well with                             the conclusion that the circumstances justifying capital punishment are                             'practically non-existent.'"
                        
                        (As a side point, I should note that the opposition of the majority of the                             American bishops to the use of capital punishment is not binding on the                             faithful, since national bishops' conferences, as such, are not part of the                             magisterium.)

catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp

 

[Richardols]

“If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means. … Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime … the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically non-existent’” (quoting EV 56).

How are we to understand this? Avery Cardinal Dulles has noted (in a letter to the “National Catholic Register”) that a denial of retribution as a legitimate purpose of capital punishment would be contrary to the traditional teaching of the Church,

Dulles believes that section 2267 and “Evangelium Vitae” are not Church teaching, in the proper meaning of the term, but reflect the “prudential judgment” of John Paul II.

With all due respect to the Cardinal, I’ll take the Pope’s “prudential judgment” over a theologian’s (howsoever famous he is) “prudential judgment” any time.

 

[rlg94086]

Richardols:

So, I can’t see how any of us (Catholics, anyway) can disagree or struggle over the issue…

*** Sarcasm alert ***

Great! I’m glad to hear that all Catholics agree with everything the Pope and Catechism say. No more debate! I’ll just let someone who disagrees with anything (i.e. abortion, death penalty, birth control, etc.) know that they are…how did you describe Governor Owens…oh yeah - NOT CATHOLIC. Kick them all out, including the Cardinals and Bishops who make statements contrary to the Catechism or the Pope. I’ll just walk right up to that Cardinal and say “you’re not Catholic!”

*** End of Sarcasm ***

I prefer to believe that Catholics who are in error are struggling with a Church teaching. I have no problem with your assertion regarding this case or your understanding of the Pope and Catechsim on this matter, but you ought to learn some tolerance. Why would you assume that Governor Owens “hasn’t a clue about the Pope’s position on the criteria for imposition of the death penalty?” How do you know his heart? Look at Senator Santorum. Isn’t his heart softening on this issue?

“There are people in this world who do not love their fellow man, and I hate people like that!” - Steve Martin

God Bless,

Robert.

 

[Richardols]

rlg94086:

Why would you assume that Governor Owens “hasn’t a clue about the Pope’s position on the criteria for imposition of the death penalty?”

You are correct. I can’t read his heart and it was presumptuous of me to try to do so.

I inferred that he was not a Catholic from his statement that the ruling was demeaning to people of faith. IMO, even those Catholics who would still tolerate the imposition of the death penalty, don’t say that failure to do so is demeaning to them personally.

It’s not “Catholicese.”