Did God tell jurors to kill a man?

FromTheSouth

You don't want it with me.
Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to Jury's Use of Bible

Monday, April 20, 2009

* Print
* ShareThis

HOUSTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away a challenge from a Texas death row inmate who claimed his constitutional rights were violated by jurors who consulted a Bible.

In the appeal, Khristian Oliver's defense said jurors reviewed a biblical passage stating that a murderer who used an iron object to kill "shall surely be put to death." Jurors were deciding whether to sentence Oliver to death for shooting and bludgeoning his victim with the barrel of a gun.

The court previously has said jurors should base their verdicts only on evidence presented in the courtroom.

State and lower federal courts upheld Oliver's death sentence, despite testimony that some jurors in the Nacogdoches County case consulted the biblical passage.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year said jurors wrongly used the Bible but said there wasn't enough evidence to show they were prejudiced when they decided to send Oliver to death row in 1999.

Oliver's lawyers asked the Supreme Court to review the case, and the high court Monday refused.

"It's a big disappointment," attorney Winston Cochran said. "With a life at stake, I think they needed to be a little bit more open-minded."

Oliver, 31, from Waco, was condemned for the slaying of Joe Collins, 64, during a March 1998 break-in at Collins' rural East Texas home. Three of Oliver's companions received prison terms ranging from five to 99 years.

At issue was a passage in Chapter 35 of Numbers which, in the New American Standard Bible, reads: "But if he struck him down with an iron object, so that he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death." Some translations refer to the weapon as an "iron rod."

Collins was shot and then struck with the barrel of a gun, which Cochran said could be likened to an iron rod.

Prosecutors had argued there never was an implication jurors voted based on Scripture or had any kind of religious discussion.

Defense lawyers interviewing jurors after Oliver's capital murder trial discovered jurors had had Bibles with them. But at a hearing, jurors gave differing testimony on whether there was one Bible or several present and on what their purpose was. One said any reading from the books came after they had reached a decision.

"There is contradictory evidence regarding whether the jurors' consultation of the Bible occurred before or after the jury reached its decision," the 5th Circuit said in its ruling in the case. It said that Oliver's appeal failed to present clear evidence that the Bible's use "had a substantial and injurious effect."

Collins was slain when he returned to his home to find Oliver, then 20, and 16-year-old Benny Rubalcaba inside. Two other companions were waiting outside.

As Oliver and Rubalcaba tried to run away, Collins got a rifle and shot Rubalcaba in the leg. Oliver fired his pistol at Collins, then grabbed the man's rifle and beat him with it. Evidence showed Collins was shot five times and suffered multiple skull fractures.


Well, this seems right up the alley of the Lounge.

I, personally, feel that Oliver deserves to die. He broke into a house, with a weapon, and then killed the homeowner who was protecting his home. The use, or nonuse of the Bible seems incidental to me.

I know that most left leaning people feel that the Bible has no place in a courtroom, but if it was used to set the jurors mind at ease, then what is the difference? In the state of Texas, killing someone while committing another crime is capital murder. Capital murder is punished by death more times in Texas than anywhere else.

I do not think that the Bible changed Oliver's sentence. Past precedent in Texas is very clear, juries tend to choose death in cases such as these.

Even if the Bible did play a role in the decision, I am not too upset. Using a Bible to decide whether or not a punishment, which is legal, is right seems OK to me. The punishment was decided by the state to be a viable action, and the juror's actions on that law were decided by God.

I bet Oliver wishes they would have opened it up to a verse on mercy. Oh well, another killer put to death means another criminal off the streets, forever.
 
One thing that really annoys me is people who will commit a crime as horribly as this, then talk about their rights. What about the rights of the person whose life you took? They didn't care about it then, so why should we care now? He should be shot, then they're not wasting resources on keeping him fed etc. in prison.
 
I say good riddance to bad rubbish. This Oliver individual obviously doesn't care about individual rights. If he did, he never would've killed an older gentleman who was trying to protect his home. After committing this crime, he should be put to death, and the sooner the better. The people Texas don't need to be supporting him, making his life easy street, after he kills a man in cold blood. His sentence was just, and the whole Bible thing was incidental. The punishment fit the crime. It should NOT be overturned.
 
i believe in eye for an eye. you beat someone, you get beat. you kill someone, you get killed, you rape someone...rape for you too. the american justice system is just so soft. this guy deserved what he got, and then to say he didnt get a fair trial because the jury looked to the bible? please. he committed a crime and took an innocent life, for that he should die as well.
 
This is a toughy. I don't think the use of the bible changed his sentence, and he deserves what he has coming. But on the other hand, should decisions in a court of law be made with the aid of what a decent portion of the population believe to be silly superstitions and children's bedtime stories? There have got to be more intellectual ways to condemn the guilty.
 
bedtime stories and superstions? give me a break already. is that how you refer to the bible? and i dont think half the population think that. it's maybe your belief, but dont put words in other people's mouths.

as far as our justice system, it sucks plain and simple. we should take a page from other countries justice system. most of them dont take crap from anyone. public whippings...i'm all for it.
 
bedtime stories and superstions? give me a break already. is that how you refer to the bible? and i dont think half the population think that. it's maybe your belief, but dont put words in other people's mouths.

as far as our justice system, it sucks plain and simple. we should take a page from other countries justice system. most of them dont take crap from anyone. public whippings...i'm all for it.

Yeah, that's totally not the purpose of the Bible, it should be used as a guide to life. I don't necessarily think it should be taken literally, but that's only because of things lost in translation. But, that's off topic. I do, however, agree with ya on the justice system. It does suck, and that's because of your occasional convictions of innocent people, and acquittals of obviously guilty men.
 
Many other first world countries have over twenty percent of their population represented by athiests and agnostics. In Britain, it's around 40%. To some, the United States is a laughing stock in the manner faith is applied to practical issues like this one. Furthermore, I never presented it as my belief. Even if I did, it doesn't make the point anything to scoff at. I think it's an issue that deserves legitimate consideration.
 
bedtime stories and superstions? give me a break already. is that how you refer to the bible? and i dont think half the population think that. it's maybe your belief, but dont put words in other people's mouths.

He's not putting words into other peoples mouths, this is how many people feel about the bible, myself included. Why is it that when he gives his opinion on the bible you bash him for it and tell him not to put words into other peoples mouths, but when a religious person says "The bible is true" you wouldn't say a word about it? Is that really fair? So give me a break already, and come back when you have something decent to say.

as far as our justice system, it sucks plain and simple. we should take a page from other countries justice system. most of them dont take crap from anyone. public whippings...i'm all for it.

Public whippings would be pointless, and simply bring on assault claims and abuse from police. In this case, he's been sentenced to death for killing, which I can see why, but there wouldn't be a need for even that if life in prison meant life. Why fight violence with more violence?
 
My one question is where do you think most of the laws come from? It seems like our penal code is just the Bible's laws with all the rubbish left out. If you go back 100 years, it is even closer. When America was founded, the laws of the society were very close to the Bible, and as time has gone, some of the less relevant Biblical regulation have been found to be expendable, but for the most part, Leviticus and the Texas penal code are very similar.

A quick note on the Texas penal code...

The ruling party in this state has changed several times since the time of Lincoln. It was thought that the best way to avoid massive sweeping changes was to make most laws, criminal and otherwise, Constitutional Law. Therefore, the regulation for everything from how to place a sewer pipe to how to deal with a murderer is virtually unchangeable. Most Texas laws that have been overturned were due to Federal Constitution questions, most notably the 2003 overturning of sodomy laws.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,837
Messages
3,300,747
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top