Playing God with Khristian Oliver

This post was written by Nation intern and freelance writer Andrea D'Cruz.

Ten years ago Khristian Oliver was convicted of murder: during a burglary in March of 1998, Joe Collins, whose house was being robbed, arrived home. As the two burglars attempted to flee, he shot one of them. The other burglar, the then-20 year old Oliver, shot Collins before striking him in the head with a rifle butt, according to testimony at Oliver's April 1999 trial.

After the trial, it emerged that jurors had consulted their bibles during sentencing deliberations -- something that the US Constitution specifically prohibits as "external influence." In a post-trial hearing later in 1999--the year of the sentencing--the judge was told by four jurors that several Bibles had been present in the jury room, that highlighted passages were passed between jurors, and that one read passages to other jurors. But the judge did not allow the defense to ask questions pertaining to the influence of the Bible's presence on the sentencing.

One of the jurors deliberating Oliver's sentence even identified a passage in the Bible that almost precisely described the crime. "And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer," he read aloud to the Texan jury. And then: "the murderer shall surely be put to death."

The jurors did indeed sentence Oliver to death and his execution is set for November 5. On the basis of the divine intervention on the sentencing process, which created an unfair and partial jury, Amnesty International has issued an urgent appeal stating: "Even supporters of the death penalty will agree that no one should ever be executed if there is any suggestion of any unfair trial. Khristian Oliver's trial wasn't just unfair; it was a travesty."

Last year the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, while conceding that the presence of the Bible was wrongful and an "external influence" prohibited under the Constitution, said there wasn't enough evidence to demonstrate that it had prejudiced the jury. Oliver's lawyer blamed the presiding judge: "We were prohibited from asking the question we were later being asked to prove."

The answer to that question was given in an interview in 2002 by a Danish journalist with a fifth juror. He divulged that "about 80 per cent" of the jurors had "brought scripture into the deliberation", and that the jurors had consulted the Bible "long before we ever reached a verdict." Had he been told that he couldn't consult the Bible, "I would have left the courtroom", the juror declared. He described himself as a death penalty supporter and life imprisonment as a "burden" on the taxpayer and disclosed his belief that "the Bible is truth from page 1 to the last page" and that if civil law and biblical law were in conflict, scripture should prevail. This good article in the Guardian has further details about the extent to which the jurors relied on a faith-based process to determine their sentence.

In 2005 the state supreme court in Colorado overturned a death penalty on a convicted murderer because the jurors had turned to the Bible while deliberating over his sentence. However, decisions relating to these kinds of cases have been inconsistent and so, earlier this year 46 former federal and state prosecutors urged the Supreme Court to hear Oliver's case to resolve this issue. In April the Supreme Court refused.

AI is demanding that, "the Texan Board of Pardon and Paroles should now instruct the state governor to commute Mr. Oliver's death sentence and indeed he should himself stay the execution if the board fails to act" and is urging people in the US and around the world to send appeals today.

Comments (159)

1. The fact that the juors read the Bible before sentencing seems to indicate that the trial portion was over and the man found guilty. So, not an issue as to the guilt or innocence of the murderer..

   Execute him. He has had what?, 10 years longer than his accomplice or his victim....BTW, has anyone ever mentioned the victim here?

   Collins or his family? I don't recall him being mentioned other than his name in paragraph 1.

   A simple do not bring Bibles or any other reading material not checked out by the court into the jury deliberartion room should suffice for justice, if justice is what we are working towards..

   It would be a travesty of justice to let this murderer get off with something his victim was never given an option to have...life.

   However, if this is another Texas is unfair and we need to end the death penalty beg a thoins, then you are on the right track...and Collins and justice be dammed.

   Posted by YourJomamma at 10/27/2009 @ 4:36pm

2. <After the trial, it emerged that jurors had consulted their bibles during sentencing deliberations -- something that the US Constitution specifically prohibits as "external influence.">

   Peter,

   You folks on the left just like making this stuff up. There is no language in the constitution prohibiting external influence.

   As a matter of fact and logic, every juror brings external influence into their deliberations. That includes both people of faith and atheists. To deny that is to deny human nature.

   Where there is applicability is not in the language of the constitution, but Federal law (Federal Rule 606(b)) with regards to jury tampering or IMPROPER outside influence. Christians are bound by their faith to obey the law as long as it comports to G-d's laws. Where it doesn't they are required to disobey. Therefore, the jurors were being consistent with both the law and their faith.

   What you and the other advocates are like Ms D'Cruz are advocating is that a murderer escape justice because the jurors acted in accordance with who they are and as that comports with the law. Is there any inconsistency between their decision and what the law comports? NO

   Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 4:54pm

3. Eeek! I actually kinda of agree with YJ.

   This occurred during the sentencing, not the trial. He is guilty. Options are either life or death, my understanding is that under texas law premeditated murder is punishable by death. If you bring a weapon with you while commiting a crime it indicates that you would be willing to use it, premeditation.

   The law is the law, and I am not convinced that had the jury not had their bibles would they have reached a different conclusion or that the bibles actually played into their determination. Likely, it only helped them from an emotional standpoint as it would be difficult for anyone to sentence another to death. I think that the 5th court of appeals made the appropriate conclusion.

   The appropriateness of the death penalty is altogether another discussion.

   Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 4:59pm

4. Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 4:54pm

   You are, of course, correct in your post above.

   This is about ending the death penalty.

   Posted by YourJomamma at 10/27/2009 @ 5:09pm

5. Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 4:54pm |

   <In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY of the state...>

   Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 5:32pm

6. Alright, I'm going out on a limb here but I think I also agree with Jomamma, YIKES!

   Posted by Denise29 at 10/27/2009 @ 5:34pm

7. "Playing God with Khristian Oliver "

   Actually, the title of Peters article is what Kristan with a K did...he played God with Collins.

   Posted by YourJomamma at 10/27/2009 @ 5:38pm

8. Posted by YourJomamma at 10/27/2009 @ 5:09pm |

   If you rob a liquor store killing the owner and I vote for the death penalty because, "I think he smells funny", would you feel like you got a fair trial?

   Jurors have no business making up their own law Mosaic or otherwise. They should have left the liturgy closed and convicted and sentenced him to death for breaking the murder statutes in Texas.

   No more, no less.

   Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 5:40pm

9. Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 4:54pm |

   So Larry - if the jury was comprised of persons whose faith told them capital punishment was antithetical to their religious beliefs, and they decided that life in prison was appropriate, you would support that?

   Say they read:

   Matthew 5:38-39: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

   And interpreted this passage as against 'revenge.'

   Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 5:44pm

10. "If you rob a liquor store killing the owner and I vote for the death penalty because, "I think he smells funny", would you feel like you got a fair trial?"

    Under your statment I am already guilty..I robbed the liquour store and killed the owner...., so it doesn't matter what the jury is reading.

    I am guilty..to squeek out of the trial by complaining I wasnt treated fair is...anything but justice...

    ..it is liberal horseshit....

    and that has been the problem all along...not what the jury is reading.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/27/2009 @ 5:48pm

11. OK, now I agree with OneVote, I also have to say I'm against the death penalty, just put them in jail and throw away the key.

    Posted by Denise29 at 10/27/2009 @ 5:48pm

12. This occurred during the sentencing, not the trial.

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 4:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    'The answer to that question was given in an interview in 2002 by a Danish journalist with a fifth juror. He divulged that "about 80 per cent" of the jurors had "brought scripture into the deliberation", and that the jurors had consulted the Bible "long before we ever reached a verdict." Had he been told that he couldn't consult the Bible, "I would have left the courtroom", the juror declared. He described himself as a death penalty supporter and life imprisonment as a "burden" on the taxpayer and disclosed his belief that "the Bible is truth from page 1 to the last page" and that if civil law and biblical law were in conflict, scripture should prevail.'

    Am I missing something here?

    Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 5:50pm

13. Test...

    <b>Bold.</b>

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/27/2009 @ 5:50pm

14. Jurors have no business making up their own law Mosaic or otherwise. They should have left the liturgy closed and convicted and sentenced him to death for breaking the murder statutes in Texas.

    No more, no less.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 5:40pm

    Actualy. I think the juors can make up the law at that time...and there is nothing anyone can do...

    I saw the movie with Paul Newman as the Boston drunk who defeated the church.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/27/2009 @ 5:55pm

15. OK, now I agree with OneVote, I also have to say I'm against the death penalty, just put them in jail and throw away the key.

    Posted by Denise29 at 10/27/2009 @ 5:48pm

    Then I think you'd be free to vote that way at sentencing.... or you might be disqualified at jury selection time if death penatly is demanded.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/27/2009 @ 5:56pm

16. Am I missing something here?

    Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 5:50pm

    Maybe...did they use the Bible to determine if it was murder or did they use it to determine if using a metal pipe(bullet) demanded death penalty.

    either way..

    the guy should be...aborted..(couldn't resist).

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/27/2009 @ 5:58pm

17. A lot of cons make great fun of lawyers and the legal system, then like to hand over to that same fucked-up system about which they bitch so bitterly the ultimate power over life and death.

    Never understand you boys.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/27/2009 @ 5:59pm

18. OK, now I agree with OneVote, I also have to say I'm against the death penalty, just put them in jail and throw away the key.

    Posted by Denise29 at 10/27/2009 @ 5:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    No matter where you stand on the death penalty, this brand of justice stinks to "High Heaven" - pun intended.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 5:59pm

19. Test...

    <b>Bold.</b>

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/27/2009 @ 5:50pm

    Test results...

    you failed...:)

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/27/2009 @ 6:00pm

20. I don't get it. It doesn't sound like the condemned is even claiming he didn't do it. He did it, he got sentenced to death for doing it--period, end of story.

    Jurors take all kinds of influences into the deliberation room with them. Some are religious, some aren't. We're all made up of a wide variety of different ideas that influence the way we think and the way we look at the world.

    This guy broke the law and he was dumb enough to do it in a state that has (and uses) the death penalty for the type of crime he committed.

    Should having a religious outlook disqualify one from setting on a jury? I know the left has always been somewhat hostile to religion (especially judeo-christianity which is, ironically, the foundation of most of our law) but this is ridiculous.

    Fry him.

    Posted by vertigoskippy at 10/27/2009 @ 6:02pm

21. Maybe...did they use the Bible to determine if it was murder or did they use it to determine if using a metal pipe(bullet) demanded death penalty.

    either way..

    the guy should be...aborted..(couldn't resist).

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/27/2009 @ 5:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Sorry John - the verdict is tainted, regardless.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 6:07pm

22. Am I missing something here?

    Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 5:50pm

    I don't know are you?

    "After the trial, it emerged that jurors had consulted their bibles during sentencing deliberations"

    "One of the jurors deliberating Oliver's sentence even identified a passage in the Bible that almost precisely described the crime."

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 6:11pm

23. Sorry John - the verdict is tainted, regardless.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 6:07pm

    I dont think so...but I am open to a reasonable view here...if the gjuy was reading batman and descided the innocence or guilt based on his reading material at the time...and not the facts of the case then you are right. ATo me it sounds like the issue is not if the guy murdered Collins, but if the metal used is grounds for the special sentence...

    Fry him is right.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/27/2009 @ 6:12pm

24. Should having a religious outlook disqualify one from setting on a jury? I know the left has always been somewhat hostile to religion (especially judeo-christianity which is, ironically, the foundation of most of our law) but this is ridiculous.

    Fry him.

    Posted by vertigoskippy at 10/27/2009 @ 6:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Our courts are not religious courts. Obviously, Christians, Jews, Muslims, whatever sit on juries all the time. They apply criminal law not religious law.

    The procedural burden of fair trial is on the Court, not the accused.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 6:13pm

25. Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 6:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    One more time - read carefully. Verdict is presentencing.

    'He divulged that "about 80 per cent" of the jurors had "brought scripture into the deliberation", and that the jurors had consulted the Bible "long before we ever reached a verdict."'

    Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 6:17pm

26. "Several of them carried Bibles in and out like my daughter carries her "Seventeen" magazine," she said. "It was just their reading material."

    Judges at the 5th Circuit, in their ruling Nov. 16, asked lawyers to explain whether the jurors' consultation of the Bible amounted to "an external influence that raises a presumption of prejudice."

    Collins went out to pick up a hamburger for dinner the evening of March 17, 1998, and returned to his rural home to find Oliver, then 20, and 16-year-old Benny Rubalcaba inside. Rubalcaba's 15-year-old brother and Oliver's girlfriend were outside waiting in a pickup truck.

    As the two intruders tried to run away, Collins got a rifle and shot Benny Rubalcaba in the leg. Oliver fired his pistol at Collins, then grabbed the man's rifle and beat him with it, evidence showed.

    One of the teenagers later would say he saw Oliver swinging the rifle at Collins like a golf club and then like an ax. The fatal wounds to Collins' head and face left him nearly unrecognizable and with severe skull fractures.

    Evidence showed Collins was shot five times by Oliver with at least two of the shots fired while the man was laying on his back on the ground outside his house.

    "He basically blew his head off," Korioth said.

    A neighbor found Collins dead in the front yard. Collins' hamburger was still in a bag on the front seat of his pickup truck.

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 6:20pm

27. Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/27/2009 @ 5:59pm

    Boy, is THAT a true statement! They hate all them "trial lawyers" when it comes to defending a civil rights case or a civil case against a corporation, but when it comes to something like this, the death first Republicans always come to the defense of the legal profession.

    I am personally against the death penalty in all cases, as I am against state sanctioned murder in any form. The death penalty exists for no other reason than revenge (which goes over well in Texas); it does not deter crime; it does not punish the offender (I personally believe an entire life spent in prison is more punishment than being allowed to go...elsewhere [and no, I don't believe in hell]); it costs the state more taxpayer money to put a prisoner to death than to incarcerate him/her for a lifetime; and I believe that in all instances it is immoral and unethical for a modern nation to put people to death.

    However, in a potential death penalty case in Texas, you don't make it on the jury unless you are a god-fearin' Christian.

    So, I must say that I don't find it ironic at all that the Christians are putting to death a man named Khristian (however it might be spelled).

    Someday, I hope America will grow up and stop the petty and childish behavior we currently have ensconced in our laws.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 6:21pm

28. If only Pilate had been given a copy before his deliberations.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 6:26pm

29. Fry him is right.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/27/2009 @ 6:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    So if Collins' life was not in danger, nor his property, and the burglers where in flight when he shot, and Collins was exercising vigilantism rather than self defense of property - you see no difference compared to a fact pattern whereby Oliver shot first?

    You seem to agree with the old adage that if you kill a suspected burgler on your front lawn while the suspected burgler is running away, make sure that you drag him inside your house before you call the police?

    Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 6:29pm

30. Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 4:54pm |

    <In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY of the state...>

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 5:32pm

    What's your point? Were they partial to the victims because of relationship? Were they partial to the prosecutor because of relationship?

    You are applying a definition separate from the law (which is not surprising).

    Here's what the legal scholars say

    <Impartiality is a two-fold requirement.

    First, "the selection of a petit jury from a representative cross section of the community is an essential component of the Sixth Amendment."

    Second, there must be assurance that the jurors chosen are unbiased, i.e., willing to decide the case on the basis of the evidence presented.>

    As to the Bible's being present; How is it different than if one juror states during the penalty deliberations, "The bible says murderers deserve death". 9 other jurors then state, that's right and he clearly murdered that man" Another juror says, "but aren't we supposed to forgive?". "Yes, says the first, but the law is clear and so is the Bible. They both agree that you reap what you sow". the 12th juror is an atheist who says, "I don't care what your bible says, he killed the man and the law says he deserves the death penalty. We need to uphold the law". All 12 then agree that nothing prohibits them enforcing the total requirement of the law.

    The fact that they had a bible or bibles present is not a factor.

    You also neglect that the defense had the right during jury selection to challenge jurors beliefs on the death penalty.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 6:36pm

31. "Several of them carried Bibles in and out like my daughter carries her "Seventeen" magazine," she said. "It was just their reading material."

    Well, the fifth juror states that the jury "consulted" the Bible.

    So - what we have is a dispute as to "facts." There is potential mistrial.

    The bible is not evidentiary, nor is the word of G-d testimony.

    I am not arguing innocence - I am arguing fair trial.

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 6:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 6:39pm

32. Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 6:36pm |

    The jurors chosen were obviously not unbiased...they were not applying the laws of Texas, but Moses.

    "As to the Bible's being present; How is it different than if one juror states during the penalty deliberations, "The bible says murderers deserve death""

    It isn't...that's also bias.

    "They both agree that you reap what you sow". the 12th juror is an atheist who says, "I don't care what your bible says, he killed the man and the law says he deserves the death penalty."

    Following the law...not biased.

    "The fact that they had a bible or bibles present is not a factor."

    Bullshit. Jurors should be considering the material facts of the case and the letter of the law. Anything else is not an unbiased jury.

    "You also neglect that the defense had the right during jury selection to challenge jurors beliefs on the death penalty."

    I'm sure the defense attorney also asked them if they could be unbiased...they obviously lied.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 6:45pm

33. As to the Bible's being present; How is it different than if one juror states during the penalty deliberations, "The bible says murderers deserve death""

    It isn't...that's also bias.

    "They both agree that you reap what you sow". the 12th juror is an atheist who says, "I don't care what your bible says, he killed the man and the law says he deserves the death penalty."

    Following the law...not biased.

    "The fact that they had a bible or bibles present is not a factor."

    Bullshit. Jurors should be considering the material facts of the case and the letter of the law. Anything else is not an unbiased jury.

    "You also neglect that the defense had the right during jury selection to challenge jurors beliefs on the death penalty."

    I'm sure the defense attorney also asked them if they could be unbiased...they obviously lied.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 6:45pm

    What we have at work here is your bias against the fact that the law and the bible agree.

    Does the state of Texas law state that murder is against the law?

    Does the state of Texas provide for the death penalty where it is proven that the act of wilfull murder took place?

    Where is the bias?

    Are you stating that an atheist would vote differently simply because Christianity also upholds that punishment?

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 6:55pm

34. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 6:21pm

    Actually the death penalty is an effective deterrent. Kristian Oliver will never kill anyone else.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 6:56pm

35. I am not arguing innocence - I am arguing fair trial.

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 6:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 6:39pm

    As am I. I don't think that Ms D'Cruz is being open with all the facts of the case. According to 5th circuit court documents several members of the jury carried bibles because they attended a bible study group in the evening. The statment reported by another juror to another news magazine was not under oath and I could not find repeated in any other court documents. The 5th Circuit Courts is based out of New Orleans, it is not some small time Texan old west, court of good ol boys. They found no reason to overturn the case, as they determined there was not enough evidence to show that the juror actually based their determination off of the bible.

    This is only being highlighted to fire up anti death penalty folks. The core of the complaint appears to be rather weak.

    In addition Ms D'Cruz mentions the unconstitutionality of the jurors actions several times, and even implies the 5th Circuit found it unconstitutional, this is complete fabrication.

    The courts conclusion:

    "The jury's use of the Bible during the sentencing phase of Oliver's trial amounted to an improper external influence on the jury's deliberations. However, Oliver has failed to rebut the state court's factual finding that the Bible did not prejudice the jury's decision. Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court's judgment denying habeas relief."

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 6:57pm

36. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 6:21pm

    Actually the death penalty is an effective deterrent. Kristian Oliver will never kill anyone else.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 6:56pm

    Well, by that logic it is as effective as life in prison.

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 6:59pm

37. Never understand you boys.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/27/2009 @ 5:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    And they sure don't like prosecution for white collar crimes - heck, why don't we just make corruption legal - that ways we don't break any laws........no regulation - no problems - let the FREE market decide -

    Don't hear these boys calling for George Bush and Dick Cheney to stand trial either.

    But golly o mighty, don't you low-life poor folk figure you can steal from us.......we will drop ya in your tracks.

    Unfortunately, as things get worse, we will have more crime. What does the bible say about fairness and compassion to your fellow man?

    Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 6:59pm

38. Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 6:55pm |

    "What we have at work here is your bias against the fact that the law and the bible agree."

    What we have here is your abject ignorance to the fact that THAT DOES NOT MATTER ONE IOTA.

    "Does the state of Texas law state that murder is against the law?"

    Yes.

    "Does the state of Texas provide for the death penalty where it is proven that the act of wilfull murder took place?"

    Sure does.

    "Where is the bias?"

    They convicted and sentenced him for a reason other than the law of the state of Texas.

    "Are you stating that an atheist would vote differently simply because Christianity also upholds that punishment?"

    No, but they wouldn't attempt to taint the process by reading to the other jurors from scripture.

    Each and every one of those christian jurors has the right to vote for the death penalty, but they need to check their religion at the door or at the VERY LEAST keep their religious motivations to themselves.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 7:05pm

39. More from the 5th circuit court:

    First, there is contradictory evidence regarding whether the jurors' consultation of the Bible occurred before or after the jury reached its decision. Second, several jurors testified that the Bible was not a focus of their discussions. Third, the court instructed the jury that "[i]n deliberating upon the cause you are not to refer to or discuss any matter or issue not in evidence before you" and that "you are bound to receive the law from the Court."18 Fourth, the jurors brought the Bibles into the jury room by themselves and without the imprimatur of the court. While Oliver makes several arguments that the Bible passages might have swayed the jury, he has not presented clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness that we must afford to the state court's factual finding, particularly given that the state court heard from the jurors themselves and concluded that the Bible did not prejudice their decision.

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 7:16pm

40. Well, by that logic it is as effective as life in prison. Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 6:59pm |

    His good buddies on cell block C humbly disagree.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 7:23pm

41. Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 6:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    'But the judge did not allow the defense to ask questions pertaining to the influence of the Bible's presence on the sentencing.'

    How can the trial judge or 5th Circuit determine whether it had an impermissible influence if defense inquiry was limited?

    'In 2005 the state supreme court in Colorado overturned a death penalty on a convicted murderer because the jurors had turned to the Bible while deliberating over his sentence. However, decisions relating to these kinds of cases have been inconsistent and so, earlier this year 46 former federal and state prosecutors urged the Supreme Court to hear Oliver's case to resolve this issue. In April the Supreme Court refused.'

    State and Federal prosecutors urging the Supreme Court to hear the case.....so it would seem that persons (prosecutors!!) who are perhaps more familiar with this trial than you and I have difficulty with it.

    As to the fifth juror - why would these statements be put under oath if the trial court or Court of Appeals refused inquiry?

    I don't consider the 5th Circuit to be Roy Bean - but they are a conservative district.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 7:26pm

42. ......it is as effective as life in prison.

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 6:59pm

    So, you DO believe no one sentenced to life has EVER killed inside a prison, or EVER escaped and committed new crimes/murders. OK!

    How would you like to be a guard or prison employee hanging around killers who can't be killed (by the state)?

    Posted by Happy at 10/27/2009 @ 7:30pm

43. First, there is contradictory evidence regarding whether the jurors' consultation of the Bible occurred before or after the jury reached its decision. Second, several jurors testified that the Bible was not a focus of their discussions.

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 7:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Contradictory Evidence - I am not an expert on criminal law, but shouldn't contradictory evidence be viewed in the light most favorable to defendantant?

    Who questioned the jury - apparently the trial judge. You state that several juror testified - why not all the jurors? If one juror was tainted, the whole is tainted. This is what unanimous jury verdicts are all about.

    Defense asserts that their inquiry was limited by the Court.

    This case appears to be about the trial judge determining mistrial based on his inquiry, rather than The Court's.

    It looks like the jury violated jury instructions big time.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 7:40pm

44. Actually the death penalty is an effective deterrent. Kristian Oliver will never kill anyone else.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 6:56pm

    Well, by that logic it is as effective as life in prison.

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 6:59pm

    No, because you can murder again in prison.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 7:45pm

45. Well, by that logic it is as effective as life in prison.

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 6:59pm

    Nope, as others have said, you can still kill in prison.

    Last time I looked, and this was back in the 1990s, the murder rate in prison is six times higher than here on the outside.

    Must be all those assault weapons they pass out to the prison population...

    And this story is silly. We're talking about TEXAS. They would've killed the sucker if the only thing available to read in the deliberation room was old copies of "The Village Voice".

    A jury of your peers means a jury of your fellow Americans. They'll likely decide guilt or innocence based on the facts of the case.

    They will THEN sentence you using the dictates of their core beliefs about right and wrong. And that is understood...and welcomed.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/27/2009 @ 8:17pm

46. 'Noting that it takes a unanimous jury to impose a death sentences under Colorado law, the Supreme Court said that "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."'

    Court Throws Out Conviction For Bible-Reading Jurors Harlan Death Penalty Overturned In Metro Murder Case

    POSTED: 1:33 pm MST March 28, 2005

    Standard - Colorado:

    - at least ONE juror COULD have been influenced -

    Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 8:28pm

47. Does this mean we shouldn't allow Jesse Jackson to ever be a juror because he might have been influenced by that book?

    Or is a lifetime of reading the book okay...just so long as you don't actually read it in the deliberation room?

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/27/2009 @ 8:48pm

48. Execute him.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/27/2009 @ 4:36pm

    and if the perpetrator were your son?

    your wife?

    you?

    then what?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 9:23pm

49. They should have left the liturgy closed and convicted and sentenced him to death for breaking the murder statutes in Texas.

    No more, no less.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 5:40pm

    why let him off so easily?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 9:25pm

50. "One of the jurors deliberating Oliver's sentence even identified a passage in the Bible that almost precisely described the crime."

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 6:11pm

    yeah,

    humans have been stupid for a long time.

    maybe it's time to grow up.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 9:26pm

51. Test...

    <b>Bold.</b>

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/27/2009 @ 5:50pm

    best post yet.

    no offence ov, it's plain funny.

    bkool,

    ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡THIS IS THE GNU BOLD!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 9:28pm

52. A jury is required to limit itself to the facts of the case and the law as laid down by the judge. This is particularly important on capital cases where the law specifies aggravating factors. Bringing a bible into the jury room, pulling passages from that such as ""The murderer shall surely be put to death" and basing deliberations on that violates both strictures.

    Indeed, a US Appeals court ruled last year that the Bible should not have been allowed into the deliberation room at Oliver's trial. It upheld the conviction notwithstanding with the rationale that under the "highly deferential standard" by which federal courts should review state court decisions, Oliver had failed to prove that he had been prejudiced by this unconstitutional juror conduct.

    Posted by brunowe at 10/27/2009 @ 9:40pm

53. Sure seems to be a lot of lefties who condone murder-but that's no real surprise.

    they prefer jihadists over Jews and American Soldiers, so why shouldn't they prefer murderers over victims.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 9:51pm

54. and if the perpetrator were your son?

    your wife?

    you?

    then what?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 9:23pm

    No son of mine, no wife, or myself will EVER burglarize a home and then shoot the homeowner, and proceed to strike the wounded man with the butt of a rifle.

    So I cannot conceivably put myself in any such pair of shoes.

    I've only been around for 36 years, but I've found it to be absurdly simple to NOT burglarize people's homes or murder them for having the temerity to defend themselves and their property. I've managed to go from day to day without even the slightest inclination to do so.

    I have no sympathy for those who cannot resist the urge. For those who think of other people as inconvenient props in their own personal musical. And is the grief of the victim's family members less than that of a convicted murderer?

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/27/2009 @ 9:51pm

55. Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 6:29pm

    But he came home and found the thugs INSIDE.

    If I came home to find you inside, I would shoot you, too..and not to wound since you would only sue me for medicals bills...

    and anyone inside my home such as these guys ARE a threat...if they have the balls to break in with a weapon on them, I assume they would use it...and I would err on the side they were armed.

    BANG..HALT.

    Fry him.

    And Frosty...what if he were YOUR son...

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/27/2009 @ 9:56pm

56. yeah,

    humans have been stupid for a long time.

    maybe it's time to grow up.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 9:26pm

    I presume that "growing up" by your estimation would involve bowing down to murderers, embracing "victimhood" as a badge of honor, and unpreparedness to resist violent crime as a hallmark of urban sophistication?

    Like it or not, a belief in execution for crimes in which any less a punishment would be an insult to the sanctity of innocent life is a part of our culture.

    So much so that it is in our Constitution...perhaps another aspect of our culture you find "immature"?

    No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

    That's what it says alright.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/27/2009 @ 10:01pm

57. "Sure seems to be a lot of lefties who condone murder-but that's no real surprise. "

    To equate being opposed to capital punishment with condoning murder is simply deranged.

    Posted by brunowe at 10/27/2009 @ 10:10pm

58. Yep, that's a staw man argument. No doubt about it.

    Just curious. What do people here suppose should happen to John Allen Mohammad? The "D.C. Sniper"? Killed 10 people, wounded 3, including a 13-year-old boy.

    His accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo, described the shooting spree as JAM's jihad.

    I'm thinking the death penalty is called for. And I do not feel any less civilized for it.

    Again, the guy shot a 13-year-old boy on his way to school. One of his victims was simply mowing his lawn. I'd just as soon pay for the chemicals used to send him to a meeting with Allah than I would his clothes, room, and board for the next 40 years. That's how little he means to me.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/27/2009 @ 10:24pm

59. Citizen_Carrier, I don't doubt that there are cases where execution is condign punishment; I just don't have sufficient confidence in the ability of the justice system to risk taking the occasional innocent person down with the Jeffrey Dahmer's of the world.

    I do think your point about the reference to capital crimes in the 5th Amendment is a good one and that it isn't "cruel and unusual" as such.

    Posted by brunowe at 10/27/2009 @ 10:40pm

60. "Sure seems to be a lot of lefties who condone murder-but that's no real surprise. "

    To equate being opposed to capital punishment with condoning murder is simply deranged.

    Posted by brunowe at 10/27/2009 @ 10:10pm

    Why does a murderer deserve to live?

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 10:53pm

61. Didn't say he did. The two arguments vs. the death penalty are twofold. The idea, going back to the Enlightenment, that punishments should be limited to those necessary for public safety. The idea that its irrevocability shouldn't be hazarded upon given the deficiencies in the quality of defense sometimes provided for capital defendants.

    My own position emphasizes the second but neither position constitutes condoning murder. One is prudential and the other concerns itself with moral impact of society being an executioner.

    Posted by brunowe at 10/27/2009 @ 11:03pm

62. "Actually the death penalty is an effective deterrent. Kristian Oliver will never kill anyone else."

    Or, more likely, it is an effective incentive to commit additional murders because the next Kristian Oliver figures, if he gets caught, he'll be killed anyway.

    Not to mention that capital punishment is administered in a way that isn't just and that has been known to kill innocent people. Who did we kill "for justice" when the state murders someone?

    Posted by brunowe at 10/27/2009 @ 9:40pm

    "A jury is required to limit itself to the facts of the case and the law as laid down by the judge."

    Two words: jury nullification. Ultimately, a jury can decide to handle a case in any way it deems just. The only unfortunate thing here is that there wasn't an independent thinker present among the selected jury members. Although, it's not too surprising since our jury selection process seems designed to select a a homogeneous group that does what it is told.

    Posted by brunowe at 10/27/2009 @ 10:10pm

    "Sure seems to be a lot of lefties who condone murder-but that's no real surprise."

    Another example of an idiot who cannot figure out why using the Bible in a jury deliberation might be as appropriate as consulting a Ouija board.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/27/2009 @ 11:18pm

63. <Another juror, Michael Brenneisen, told a journalist in 2002 that he asked himself "Is this the way the Lord would decide the case?" But Brenneisen also said that in discussing the Bible the jury "went both directions in our use of the scripture - forgiveness and judgement".>

    http://tinyurl.com/yju9qjw

    The anti-death penalty folks leave out this part of the jury investigation.

    And that the Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal. that means the 4 liberal justices wouldn't even consider his appeal.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 11:26pm

64. why let him off so easily? Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 9:25pm |

    I'm not saying that's what *I* would do...I personally find the death penalty to be barbaric and riddled with ethical issues stem to stern, but the people of Texas, by and large, tend to vote that way...they just need to do so within the confines of the law.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 11:30pm

65. Posted by YourJomamma at 10/27/2009 @ 9:56pm |

    Perhaps if he left it to the sheriff, he'd still be alive today.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 11:31pm

66. Why does a murderer deserve to live? Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 10:53pm |

    Because sometimes...they're not the real perp.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 11:32pm

67. Sure seems to be a lot of lefties who condone murder-but that's no real surprise. they prefer jihadists over Jews and American Soldiers, so why shouldn't they prefer murderers over victims. Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 9:51pm |

    You've said something inflammatory and idiotic, but that's no surprise.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 11:36pm

68. The anti-death penalty folks leave out this part of the jury investigation. Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 11:26pm |

    It's irrelevant and inappropriate in EITHER direction.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 11:37pm

69. Here's what makes this interesting, and I think it brings out some of the tricky issues in jury deliberations. What if instead of bringing Bibles in, you'd just had people who knew it backwards and forwards? It'd be just as much of an influence...but I'm pretty sure there'd be nothing he could do because the jurors aren't allowed to talk about non-outside matter that influenced their deliberations.

    So on the one hand, you clearly want to keep outside material out. On the other hand, you know it will be imperfect because people carry knowledge and certain perspectives with them regardless of whether they carry a book to court. I think the current system (don't bring in external stuff) is just better overall.

    Also...anti, seriously, opposing the death penalty is equivalent to condoning murder? And if you want to go to OT precedent (which you have to for any explicit defense of the death penalty), what about prostitutes? Adulterers?

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/27/2009 @ 11:37pm

70. Such external influences on juries are flagrant violations of the US Constitution. While Texas state courts found this juror conduct to be acceptable, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found in fact that the external influence in this case was "egregious", and that the jurors had "crossed an important line." The 5th Circuit court nonetheless felt compelled to uphold the Texas court rulings, citing the "highly deferential standard" they are required to follow in reviewing state court decisions.

    Amnesty International

    See:

    THE FACT-FINDING PROCESS REVIEW MODEL: REMEDYING FACT-BASED CONSTITUTIONALCHALLENGES ON FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW

    Thomas Jefferson Law Review

    Abigail L. Kite

    A great read on this case.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 11:42pm

71. "Ultimately, a jury can decide to handle a case in any way it deems just. The only unfortunate thing here is that there wasn't an independent thinker present among the selected jury members."

    Of course, jury nullification is arguably what happened. The fact that it happens doesn't mean it's a good idea in any but the most exceptional cases.

    Posted by brunowe at 10/27/2009 @ 11:44pm

72. And that the Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal. that means the 4 liberal justices wouldn't even consider his appeal. Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 11:26pm |

    While Texas state courts found this juror conduct to be acceptable, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found in fact that the external influence in this case was "egregious", and that the jurors had "crossed an important line." Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 11:42pm |

    The 5th circuit knows you're wrong too, Anti!

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/28/2009 @ 12:08am

73. The best use of a Judge, a jury of peers, and law enforcement is to prevent the premature death of any murderer out of anger or the rage of revenge at the hands of the victims family and friends.

    If the results of justice are not the same as immediate execution upon apprehension in such cases as this then "justice" is never served. Victims don't get to chose live imprisonment or appeal their death penalties. They are just dead as their killer should be.

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/28/2009 @ 12:34am

74. "Actually the death penalty is an effective deterrent"

    wow, a "christian" supports the death penalty.

    anyone else see that?

    Posted by darladoon at 10/28/2009 @ 01:03am

75. wow, a "christian" supports the death penalty.

    anyone else see that?

    Posted by darladoon at 10/28/2009 @ 01:03am | ignore this person | warn this person

    I doubt you could possiably sound any more ignorant about Christianity? If you don't know the answer try research!

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/28/2009 @ 01:17am

76. Another example of an idiot who cannot figure out why using the Bible in a jury deliberation might be as appropriate as consulting a Ouija board.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/27/2009 @ 11:18pm

    Yep, but we're perfectly fine with relying on the Bible to swear witnesses in to tell the truth.

    And as Thrawn and others have pointed out, if you've read the Bible and know it's passages before you even get selected for jury duty, couldn't it have the same effect on your decision making?

    The man was found guilty. This was sentencing. Does anybody honestly suppose a Texas jury, confronted with the inescapable guilt of the defendent WAS NOT going to send this guy to his just desserts? Regardless of what they did or did not read?

    And Darladoon, it appears you know little about Christianity. "Thou shalt not Kill" is basically interpreted as "Thou shalt not murder".

    For in other parts of the Bible is a passage stating if somebody comes into your house to steal and you strike him so that he dies, you are not guilty of murder or sin.

    Another instance has Jesus telling his disciples to sell their cloaks (which were sort of like family heirloom kilts to Scotsmen) and use the money to buy swords. We can assume he did not mean for them to be ornamental, but instruments of defense. Lethal if need be.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/28/2009 @ 01:52am

77. Wow, I suggest many of you who think it's ok to execute an innocent man? Come to Texas. We do it all the time! Just ask our great James Perry Governor of Texas. Hopefully for not too long!

    Posted by sheila60 at 10/28/2009 @ 06:37am

78. Seems very appropos to bring this up--

    "If you think that is acceptable, go for it. I don't want any religious organization or faith, including my own taking over the US government. "-----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/21/2007 @ 11:16am

    Posted by Mask at 10/28/2009 @ 07:31am

79. No son of mine, no wife, or myself will EVER burglarize a home and then shoot the homeowner, and proceed to strike the wounded man with the butt of a rifle. So I cannot conceivably put myself in any such pair of shoes.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/27/2009 @ 9:51pm

    "'We've got to have rules and obey them. After all, we're not savages. We're English, and the English are best at everything.'"

    ••

    "He began to dance and his laughter became a bloodthirsty snarling."

    ••

    "Serve you right if something did get you, you useless lot of cry-babies!"

    ••

    "'Maybe there is a beast....maybe it's only us.'"

    ••

    "'This head is for the beast. It's a gift.'"

    ••

    "They were glad to touch the brown backs of the fence that hemmed in the terror and made it governable."

    ••

    "'Kill the beast! Cut his throat! Spill his blood!'"

    "'Kill the beast! Cut his throat! Spill his blood!'"

    "'Kill the beast! Cut his throat! Spill his blood!'"

    "'Kill the beast! Cut his throat! Spill his blood!'"

    "'Kill the beast! Cut his throat! Spill his blood!'"

    "'Kill the beast! Cut his throat! Spill his blood!'"

    "'Kill the beast! Cut his throat! Spill his blood!'"

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2009 @ 08:59am

80. what if they had consulted their qur'ans before sentencing khristian?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2009 @ 09:04am

81. That's what it says alright.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/27/2009 @ 10:01pm

    Jesus loves the little children All the children of the world Black and yellow, red and white They're all precious in His sight Jesus loves the little children of the world

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2009 @ 09:06am

82. And Darladoon, it appears you know little about Christianity. "Thou shalt not Kill" is basically interpreted as "Thou shalt not murder".

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/28/2009 @ 01:52am

    interpreted?

    HOW DARE YOU "INTERPRET" THE WORD OF GOD!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2009 @ 09:13am

83. 'and if the perpetrator were your son?

    your wife?

    you?

    then what?' -- frosty zoom

    Can't be my wife, not in this state anyway.

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/28/2009 @ 09:19am

84. As a matter of fact and logic, every juror brings external influence into their deliberations. That includes both people of faith and atheists. To deny that is to deny human nature.

    --obviously ever fact-finder has his/her own life experiences and beliefs. the question is whether the bible, or specific excerpts from the bible, were used by the jury as evidence to convict. it appears the bible was used as evidence in this way; and that would certainly be against the rules of evidence.

    Where there is applicability is not in the language of the constitution, but Federal law (Federal Rule 606(b)) with regards to jury tampering or IMPROPER outside influence.

    --you're incorrect--jury tampering or outside influence isn't the case here (both imply an interested party tried to persuade the jury outside of the courtroom). the problem is evidence (here, the bible) being improperly considered (it wasn't entered into evidence by prosecutor or defendant).

    Christians are bound by their faith to obey the law as long as it comports to G-d's laws. Where it doesn't they are required to disobey. Therefore, the jurors were being consistent with both the law and their faith.

    --this could be a possible voir dire line of questioning. But in any event, if a juror believes that someone is not guilty of violating the law in consideration, but would still find the defendant guilty, it's their right to still do--it's called jury nullification--juries are never told they can do this though (I think for obvious reasons).

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 09:20am

85. What you and the other advocates are like Ms D'Cruz are advocating is that a murderer escape justice because the jurors acted in accordance with who they are and as that comports with the law. Is there any inconsistency between their decision and what the law comports? NO Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 4:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --He wouldn't escape justice. He'd get a retrial.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 09:21am

86. 'Wow, I suggest many of you who think it's ok to execute an innocent man? Come to Texas. We do it all the time! ' -- sheila60

    'Don't you know? Everybody in here's innocent!' -- The Shawshank Redemption

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/28/2009 @ 09:24am

87. Here's another fun quote, somewhat relevant-

    "Better results would be obtained if you declare a year long "open season" on illegal drug dealers and illegal drug users! Then, all that would be left is to root out the unethical legal dealers and their users who leave a "paper trail" anyone could follow!

    You just have to know how to hunt and make a kill shot!"----Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 12:39am

    I guess Rio would want Rush Limbaugh executed too, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 10/28/2009 @ 09:30am

88. Why does a murderer deserve to live? Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 10:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --because his pretext for war was good enough for you!

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 09:32am

89. <Another juror, Michael Brenneisen, told a journalist in 2002 that he asked himself "Is this the way the Lord would decide the case?" But Brenneisen also said that in discussing the Bible the jury "went both directions in our use of the scripture - forgiveness and judgement".> http://tinyurl.com/yju9qjw The anti-death penalty folks leave out this part of the jury investigation.

    --the bible was used as evidence. they admit it right there. against the rules.

    And that the Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal. that means the 4 liberal justices wouldn't even consider his appeal.

    --or kennedy made it clear he'd be voting with the 4 conservatives. 1 man rules that court.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 11:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 09:35am

90. Here's what makes this interesting, and I think it brings out some of the tricky issues in jury deliberations. What if instead of bringing Bibles in, you'd just had people who knew it backwards and forwards? It'd be just as much of an influence...but I'm pretty sure there'd be nothing he could do because the jurors aren't allowed to talk about non-outside matter that influenced their deliberations.

    --you answered your own question. someone has the bible (or certain passages) memorized--fine. still can't use it as evidence.

    So on the one hand, you clearly want to keep outside material out. On the other hand, you know it will be imperfect because people carry knowledge and certain perspectives with them regardless of whether they carry a book to court.

    --then again, convincing other jurors with biblical passages is obviously outside evidence.

    I think the current system (don't bring in external stuff) is just better overall.

    --obviously.

    Also...anti, seriously, opposing the death penalty is equivalent to condoning murder? And if you want to go to OT precedent (which you have to for any explicit defense of the death penalty), what about prostitutes? Adulterers?

    --jesus would kill 'em all! now on tour with metallica, replacing lars ulrich on drums--Jesus Christ!

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/27/2009 @ 11:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 09:39am

91. what if they had consulted their qur'ans before sentencing khristian?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2009 @ 09:04am

    They would have beheaded him in front of the court house.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/28/2009 @ 09:39am

92. If the results of justice are not the same as immediate execution upon apprehension in such cases as this then "justice" is never served. Victims don't get to chose live imprisonment or appeal their death penalties. They are just dead as their killer should be. Posted by BigPasture at 10/28/2009 @ 12:34am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --not every case has an obvious guilty party or parties. the procedural rules exists for those cases. many times the defendant quite clearly did the crime; and it's a shame if he is "exonerated" on a technicality or loop hole. this happens so rarely it's a joke that people like you use it as if it were commonplace.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 09:43am

93. wow, a "christian" supports the death penalty. anyone else see that? Posted by darladoon at 10/28/2009 @ 01:03am | ignore this person | warn this person I doubt you could possiably sound any more ignorant about Christianity? If you don't know the answer try research! Posted by BigPasture at 10/28/2009 @ 01:17am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --don't paint such a broad brush about christianity bigpasture. catholics believe the death penalty is wrong (and they're right; because all killing is wrong; even killing for "justice")

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 09:45am

94. Yep, but we're perfectly fine with relying on the Bible to swear witnesses in to tell the truth.

    --no "we're" not all fine with that. some traditions last though. but it's not traditional for a jury to use the bible in its deliberation as if it were evidence. see if you can tell the difference.

    And as Thrawn and others have pointed out, if you've read the Bible and know it's passages before you even get selected for jury duty, couldn't it have the same effect on your decision making?

    --still wouldn't be proper to use them as evidence.

    The man was found guilty. This was sentencing. Does anybody honestly suppose a Texas jury, confronted with the inescapable guilt of the defendent WAS NOT going to send this guy to his just desserts? Regardless of what they did or did not read?

    --which makes it all the more lame that they (whoever they is that brought it in) decided to use it as evidence.

    And Darladoon, it appears you know little about Christianity. "Thou shalt not Kill" is basically interpreted as "Thou shalt not murder".

    --catholics don't believe in the death penalty. last i checked they believe in christ as savior and read the bible too.

    For in other parts of the Bible is a passage stating if somebody comes into your house to steal and you strike him so that he dies, you are not guilty of murder or sin.

    --this is just evidence (pun intended!) of how silly it is to rely on an inconsistent religious text in deciding a murder case.

    Another instance has Jesus telling his disciples to sell their cloaks (which were sort of like family heirloom kilts to Scotsmen) and use the money to buy swords. We can assume he did not mean for them to be ornamental, but instruments of defense. Lethal if need be.

    --ditto my previous statement.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 09:48am

95. So, you DO believe no one sentenced to life has EVER killed inside a prison, or EVER escaped and committed new crimes/murders. OK!

    Posted by Happy at 10/27/2009 @ 7:30pm

    Does this mean we shouldn't allow Jesse Jackson to ever be a juror because he might have been influenced by that book?

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/27/2009 @ 8:48pm

    Oh dear, the specter of racism is extending its spectral shadow again!

    Posted by Mistral at 10/28/2009 @ 09:54am

96. 'Oh dear, the specter of racism is extending its spectral shadow again!' -- Mistral

    I see that with the Jesse Jackson reference, but how is the Happy quote racist?

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/28/2009 @ 09:58am

97. I see that with the Jesse Jackson reference, but how is the Happy quote racist?

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/28/2009 @ 09:58am

    It's obviously a reference to Willie Horton.

    Posted by Mistral at 10/28/2009 @ 10:06am

98. Am I missing something here?

    Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 5:50pm

    Maybe...did they use the Bible to determine if it was murder or did they use it to determine if using a metal pipe(bullet) demanded death penalty.

    either way..

    the guy should be...aborted..(couldn't resist).

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/27/2009 @ 5:58pm

    It doesn't matter what they used the Bible to determine, because they shouldn't be applying the Bible to any aspect of the trial instead of the law as written. I agree with the poster above who stated that it is impossible to expect that people will not bring their life experiences into the jury room. That includes their faith, which, I suppose, it is practically impossible to expect will not in some ways inform one's thinking. But having faith inform one's general thought process is entirely difference from the jury referencing the text of the Bible to render a decision in a court of law.

    Here, we have at least one juror who has admitted that he actually applied the text of the Bible when they should have been applying the law. To actually have scripture available in the jury room is a miscarriage of justice. The Bible is not evidentiary material, and it is not the law; thus, it has no place in the jury room. The same goes for any other religious text, medical text, or any other non-evidentiary material. And I believe a reversal of his conviction on the ground of juror misconduct would merely require a new trial. So, its not as if justice would not be done. If the jurors had consulted a book of French Law, for example, we would have no trouble concluding that what they did was clearly wrong, where their duty is to apply the law to the facts -- not to apply the Bible to the facts.

    Posted by rachael555 at 10/28/2009 @ 10:19am

99. Here, we have at least one juror who has admitted that he actually applied the text of the Bible when they should have been applying the law. To actually have scripture available in the jury room is a miscarriage of justice. The Bible is not evidentiary material, and it is not the law; thus, it has no place in the jury room. The same goes for any other religious text, medical text, or any other non-evidentiary material. And I believe a reversal of his conviction on the ground of juror misconduct would merely require a new trial. So, its not as if justice would not be done. If the jurors had consulted a book of French Law, for example, we would have no trouble concluding that what they did was clearly wrong, where their duty is to apply the law to the facts -- not to apply the Bible to the facts. Posted by rachael555 at 10/28/2009 @ 10:19am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --also, my understanding is most states will not give the jury a written copy of the law they are supposed to apply (I doubt the judge gave them the text of the murder statute in this case). The reason behind this is juries are made up of non-lawyers; we don't want them parsing language as if they were linguists. We want them to use their common sense and life experiences in their judgment. The judge is allowed, indeed, to give his a summation of the law to be applied in a case in his/her own words.

    So, bringing a different law (bible) into the jury room; where you can actually read and parse the text, not only bring s a different law than the one being applied into the fray, but the jury is working with that "law" more so than they are even allowed to work with the law the judge directs them (orally) to work with.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 10:26am

100. How would you like to be a guard or prison employee hanging around killers who can't be killed (by the state)?

     Posted by Happy at 10/27/2009 @ 7:30pm

     Seek happier employment.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/28/2009 @ 10:42am

101. How would you like to be a guard or prison employee hanging around killers who can't be killed (by the state)? Posted by Happy at 10/27/2009 @ 7:30pm Seek happier employment. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/28/2009 @ 10:42am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --perfect response stephen!

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 10:45am

102. Sure seems to be a lot of lefties who condone murder-but that's no real surprise.

     they prefer jihadists over Jews and American Soldiers, so why shouldn't they prefer murderers over victims.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 9:51pm

     Larry, you're SO melodramatic lately....everything OK?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/28/2009 @ 10:45am

103. "I doubt you could possiably sound any more ignorant about Christianity? If you don't know the answer try research!"

     there are no christians anymore. the last one died like 2000 years ago.....

     Posted by darladoon at 10/28/2009 @ 10:48am

104. Like it or not, a belief in execution for crimes in which any less a punishment would be an insult to the sanctity of innocent life is a part of our culture.

     So much so that it is in our Constitution...perhaps another aspect of our culture you find "immature"?

     No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

     That's what it says alright.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/27/2009 @ 10:01pm

     No, I find humanity to be immature (really...wars over religion? Please). I find our culture (in many ways, not just the death penalty) to be immature. I find many Republicans and Democrats to be immature, and before you doth protest too much, I sometimes even find myself to be immature, so I'm not immune to the immaturity of our culture. We live in a culture that celebrates teen-aged hookers known as singers (Britney, etc.), instead of celebrating women of intellect. We celebrate sports stars over the soldiers who fight and die to defend our freedom to celebrate sports stars. We celebrate "opinion" (Faux News) over fact.

     And you supposedly support innocent life (unborn babies), yet your side (not necessarily you personally) also tends to support the people who use terrorism and murder to stop abortions.

     Yeah, I find all of that AND the death penalty to be immature.

     I'm not sure where the death penalty is listed in the Constitution, but if Larry can find it in the words of Jesus (and he has, according to his warped interpretation of the Bible), then I suppose you can find the death penalty in the Constitution.

     You Republicans can seemingly find anything your little hearts dream up, except weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, of course.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/28/2009 @ 11:03am

105. And Darladoon, it appears you know little about Christianity. "Thou shalt not Kill" is basically interpreted as "Thou shalt not murder".

     For in other parts of the Bible is a passage stating if somebody comes into your house to steal and you strike him so that he dies, you are not guilty of murder or sin.

     Another instance has Jesus telling his disciples to sell their cloaks (which were sort of like family heirloom kilts to Scotsmen) and use the money to buy swords. We can assume he did not mean for them to be ornamental, but instruments of defense. Lethal if need be.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/28/2009 @ 01:52am

     So CC, if "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is interpreted as "Thou Shalt Not Murder," (hey Larry, there's that whole "interpretation of the Bible by men and not the actual words of god" argument of mine again!) and that's good enough for every Christian, is it then NOT good enough for a supposedly "Christian" nation?

     Your moral code doesn't support people murdering other people, but it does support the state murdering people guilty (or maybe not) of committing crimes.

     I think we've hit upon the very DEFINITION of being a Republican!

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/28/2009 @ 11:18am

106. --also, my understanding is most states will not give the jury a written copy of the law they are supposed to apply (I doubt the judge gave them the text of the murder statute in this case). The reason behind this is juries are made up of non-lawyers; we don't want them parsing language as if they were linguists. Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 10:26am

     Exactly. If they ask about the law, most, if not all, Judges will merely repeat the jury instructions already given, verbally.

     Posted by rachael555 at 10/28/2009 @ 11:20am

107. My last post on this subject (most probably):

     I have no problem with citizen jurors going into the deliberation room with the Bible in their thoughts (or Koran, or Torah, or whatever holy book they subscribe to), just as I have no problem with politicians doing the same when they deliberate a matter of public importance.

     However, I also hope those same people use their brains and the rationality that god (or whoever) gave us to determine the facts of a given situation and act according to law; the law of the state, not religious law. Because essentially, what some of those jurors did was absolutely no better than "cutting his head off in front of the courthouse" as YJ described what people of the Koran might do (he's wrong, BTW).

     Religious law (of any kind) is not the law of the State and should never be, which is why the Founders (in their near infinite wisdom), separated church from state and made the state Primary and church secondary to it in all matters of importance.

     I think that's what I meant when I said that we might one day grow up: we might begin to use our rational brains before (and over) our irrational hearts.

     I am passionate about what I believe as are most people who post here. That's a good thing (as Martha would say). But I always try (don't always succeed) to temper that passion with thought and rationality, because in the end, our hearts will kill us while our brains can save us.

     Why do you think we evolved brains anyway? It's a survival mechanism.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/28/2009 @ 11:35am

108. Sure seems to be a lot of lefties who condone murder-but that's no real surprise.

     they prefer jihadists over Jews and American Soldiers, so why shouldn't they prefer murderers over victims.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 9:51pm

     Larry, it is posts like this why so many have you on ignore. Sometimes you actually add to discussions, but when you post ridiculuous statements like the one above that add nothing to discussion are insulting and baseless, it makes one want to put you back on ignore.

     Posted by Extraneous at 10/28/2009 @ 11:56am

109. Why does a murderer deserve to live? Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 10:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --because his pretext for war was good enough for you!

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 09:32am

     -Nice!

     Posted by Extraneous at 10/28/2009 @ 12:05pm

110. I guess Rio would want Rush Limbaugh executed too, huh? Posted by Mask at 10/28/2009 @ 09:30am |

     You'll need to whip that one out the next time our resident Okie xenophobe declares that liberals are "full of hate".

     -Nice! Posted by Extraneous at 10/28/2009 @ 12:05pm |

     Ditto. Zing!!

     Posted by snowball777 at 10/28/2009 @ 12:46pm

111. I"'m not sure where the death penalty is listed in the Constitution,"

     In the 5th Amendment clause that states that nobody shall be deprived of life, liberty, etc... without due process of law. The clear implication is that, if due process is met, someone can be executed.

     "but it does support the state murdering people guilty (or maybe not) of committing crimes. "

     That's circular reasoning since murder is a legal term relating to illegal homicide.

     Posted by brunowe at 10/28/2009 @ 12:52pm

112. Posted by brunowe at 10/28/2009 @ 12:52pm

     Thanks for the clarification on the Constitution...except that nowhere does it state that the State has the right to execute anyone.

     As for the other, I was speaking about Citizen Carrier's Biblical moral position of not supporting murder (Thou Shalt Not Kill [Murder]), but yet also support the State committing murder by execution. He believes the terms Kill and Murder are essentially interchangeable.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/28/2009 @ 1:02pm

113. Posted by snowball777 at 10/28/2009 @ 12:46pm

     Rio/BigPosture lecturing on OTHER people "hating" is like Bernie Madoff lecturing on Ponzi schemes.

     I just love that sometimes his knee-jerk Archie Bunker on steroids routine blows up in his face, when it can easily be applied to somebody on HIS side of the aisle....and naturally he can't be true to his "principles" and say "Yes, that would include shooting Rush Limbagh as well!"

     Proves he's as much a hypocrite as hyperbolic.

     Posted by Mask at 10/28/2009 @ 1:03pm

114. Also...anti, seriously, opposing the death penalty is equivalent to condoning murder? And if you want to go to OT precedent (which you have to for any explicit defense of the death penalty), what about prostitutes? Adulterers?

     Posted by Thrawn at 10/27/2009 @ 11:37pm

     Nowhere did I refer to the OT. That is your ASSUMPTION.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 1:12pm

115. Amendment V:

     'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'

     The language seems clear on the subject of capital punishment, but on the other hand it refers to 'jeopardy of life or LIMB.' Is that merely referring to corporal punishment (flogging, as was done in the navy) or does it actually refer to lopping off a hand?

     Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/28/2009 @ 1:12pm

116. And that the Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal. that means the 4 liberal justices wouldn't even consider his appeal. Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 11:26pm |

     While Texas state courts found this juror conduct to be acceptable, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found in fact that the external influence in this case was "egregious", and that the jurors had "crossed an important line." Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 11:42pm |

     The 5th circuit knows you're wrong too, Anti!

     Posted by snowball777 at 10/28/2009 @ 12:08am

     last time I checked, the Supreme Court is a higher level of appeal than a Circuit court.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 1:33pm

117. The whole case of Khristian Oliver is a waste of time. There is no question of his guilt or innocence here. He broke into a mans home, shot him and then continued to beat the snot out of him while he was dying. There was nothing accidental or circumstantial about the evidence against Oliver. His guilt is not at question. The question is how much influence the presence of a bibles had on the Juror sentencing.

     Honestly, I don't care. Whether the piece of shit for a human that is K. Oliver spends his life in jail or recieves the death penalty is not up to me. It was decided by a jury. End of story. Any more thought or care given to Oliver is an insult to his victim.

     If the bibles influenced the jury, we don't really know. It looks that way, but it has already seen multiple legal reviews. Done.

     If there was something that suggested this man was innocent, that would be a wholely different issue. The fact that bibles were in the jury room and read by the jury does not mean that if they were not there a different conclusion would have been made.

     I appeal to The Nation that if they want to discuss this issue or bring us an Act Now scenario they give a story where the players are worth our discussion. Maybe, a case where someone could be innocent? Or where there was a serious breach in court conduct or error in due process. This is not the case with Oliver and he is an horrible human not worth discussion. Some people should die.

     Posted by Extraneous at 10/28/2009 @ 1:40pm

118. And that the Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal. that means the 4 liberal justices wouldn't even consider his appeal. Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 11:26pm | While Texas state courts found this juror conduct to be acceptable, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found in fact that the external influence in this case was "egregious", and that the jurors had "crossed an important line." Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 11:42pm | The 5th circuit knows you're wrong too, Anti! Posted by snowball777 at 10/28/2009 @ 12:08am last time I checked, the Supreme Court is a higher level of appeal than a Circuit court. Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 1:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --yeah, so the highest court that weighed in on the case disagrees with your take! boo-ya!

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 1:42pm

119. extraneous--you miss the point. because there could be a future case in texas where this case is good precedent and the defendant is not an obvious guilty party.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 1:44pm

120. Nowhere did I refer to the OT. That is your ASSUMPTION.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 1:12pm

     Didn't ya know? Larry believes that Jesus was all for the death penalty.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/28/2009 @ 1:45pm

121. I guess Rio would want Rush Limbaugh executed too, huh?

     Posted by Mask at 10/28/2009 @ 09:30am | ignore this person | warn this person

     That is the main problem with facetious humor, some people are just to leftist ignorant to get it! Does make it fun when mAsKeD still doesn't get it after 4 months!

     Posted by BigPasture at 10/28/2009 @ 1:47pm

122. I guess Rio would want Rush Limbaugh executed too, huh? Posted by Mask at 10/28/2009 @ 09:30am | ignore this person | warn this person That is the main problem with facetious humor, some people are just to leftist ignorant to get it! Does make it fun when mAsKeD still doesn't get it after 4 months! Posted by BigPasture at 10/28/2009 @ 1:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --big pasture, no one who posts here regularly would ever accuse you of being a dry wit, believe me. you're not in on anything. your lame humor is ignored by most. mask made an appropriate joke relevant to your "facetious humor" ... give credit where it's due.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 1:56pm

123. "Thanks for the clarification on the Constitution...except that nowhere does it state that the State has the right to execute anyone. "

     Now you're just being obtuse. The Fifth Amendment clearly refers to restrictions on government actions and therefore the implication that someone can be deprived of life as long as due process is observed also implies that the state can execute someone.

     ":last time I checked, the Supreme Court is a higher level of appeal than a Circuit court.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 1:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person "

     Last time I checked, denial of certiorari had no precedential value.

     Posted by brunowe at 10/28/2009 @ 1:57pm

124. extraneous--you miss the point. because there could be a future case in texas where this case is good precedent and the defendant is not an obvious guilty party.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 1:44pm

     This case is not a good precedent. This case is not about precedent it is about the death penalty. There is no evidence other than heresay that the bibles were actually used to determine if the sentence should be death. The case has had multiple legal reviews, by multiple courts and the sentence has withstood the scrutiny.

     The article above presents only one side of the story, and does not fairly give the arguments from the other point of view. It was not too hard to find the 5th circuit courts ruling online. It seems fair enough to me. If the SC decided not to hear the case maybe the plaintifs case isn't strong enough. The article wishes us to take the Lawyers complaints and the words of a 5th juror as unbiased truth. I am a skeptic. If Oliver really had a case we would be hearing more than just hearsay.

     Posted by Extraneous at 10/28/2009 @ 2:19pm

125. hearsay or other courts not agreeing is not the strong evidence you think it is that this case shouldn't be argued.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 2:39pm

126. Didn't ya know? Larry believes that Jesus was all for the death penalty.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/28/2009 @ 1:45pm

     Of course He was.

     1. The Mosaic Law very strongly supported the death penalty and Jesus never once disobeyed the law or taught against it. He said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matthew 5:17). The law made numerous provisions for the death penalty. Jesus did not come to destroy these provisions but to fulfill them. As such, He would have supported the death penalty.

     2.In Matthew 13:40-42, Jesus proclaims He will execute those who practice lawlessness.

     "Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

     3.In Matthew 22, Jesus tells a parable of the Kingdom of G-d in the story of the wedding feast. Some He says in vs 6 seized His servants and mistreated His servants and killed them. The just response of the King (Jesus)

     vs 7 "But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city

     one more to follow

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 2:43pm

127. Can't be my wife, not in this state anyway.

     Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/28/2009 @ 09:19am

     come on up.

     love to play your wedding..

     great rates!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2009 @ 2:44pm

128. Didn't ya know? Larry believes that Jesus was all for the death penalty.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/28/2009 @ 1:45pm

     Answer continued

     4.In Revelations, Jesus speaks to the Churches and addresses how He will treat sexual immorality in the Church

     Rev 2:20-23

     "Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. "

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 2:44pm

129. Last time I checked, denial of certiorari had no precedential value.

     Posted by brunowe at 10/28/2009 @ 1:57pm

     I didn't say it did. What I was pointing out was that Oliver couldn't get the 4 liberal justices to issue a writ of certiorari to review his case. I guess even the liberal members of SCOTUS don't agree with the liberal bloggers here

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 2:50pm

130. what about the beatitudes...the sermon on the mount?

     larry will NEVER quote those on the nation. too touchy-feely; too nice; too....LIBERAL!

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 2:52pm

131. --jesus considered property not to be the center of the pursuit of happiness. so locke and the slaveowners are gonna have to take a back seat. Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 1:41pm | Why did you insert Jesus into a discussion of economic systems. Jesus has nothing to do with that issue. Property in it's definition in the 18th century referred to wages, labor, land, businesses, and yes and unfortunately, even slaves. So, are you also against the pursuit of a good wage? Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 2:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --I've already pointed out the serious flaw in your argument--the liberal justices may already know or have a very strong feeling that kennedy wouldn't come down on their side. kennedy rules the court.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 3:00pm

132. what about the beatitudes...the sermon on the mount?

     larry will NEVER quote those on the nation. too touchy-feely; too nice; too....LIBERAL!

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 2:52pm

     I did quote from the Sermon on the Mount that contains the beatitudes in my first reason why Jesus affirms the death penalty.

     Non christians often misquote the beatitudes by attributing secular meaning to spiritual terms.

     Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth (vs 5) meek in greek here is paus which means self controlled power. No problem

     Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled (vs 6) NEVER CITED BY NON BELIEVERS

     Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see G-d (vs 8) NEVER CITED BY NON BELIEVERS

     the grk for pure is katharos, meaning without sin or blemish

     Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom of G-d. (vs 10) NEVER CITED BY NON BELIEVERS

     And the righteousness, is G-d's righteousness, not mankinds.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 3:13pm

133. that's right,

     jesus said, "melt the fuckers!".

     Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2009 @ 3:16pm

134. "I guess even the liberal members of SCOTUS don't agree with the liberal bloggers here

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 2:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person "

     Or they didn't see a split between the federal circuits on this.

     Posted by brunowe at 10/28/2009 @ 3:22pm

135. Posted by BigPasture at 10/28/2009 @ 1:47pm

     Rio, can you give us some textual signal for when you mean stuff and when it's "just a joke"?

     An asterisk * or tilde ~ or something....so we know when you're just "kidding around" about your right-wing lunacy and when you "mean it"?

     Posted by Mask at 10/28/2009 @ 3:50pm

136. BTW, of COURSE Jesus supported capital punishment....

     he was a victim of it. Why wouldn't he?

     Posted by Mask at 10/28/2009 @ 3:51pm

137. I did quote from the Sermon on the Mount that contains the beatitudes in my first reason why Jesus affirms the death penalty. Non christians often misquote the beatitudes by attributing secular meaning to spiritual terms. Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth (vs 5) meek in greek here is paus which means self controlled power. No problem Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled (vs 6) NEVER CITED BY NON BELIEVERS Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see G-d (vs 8) NEVER CITED BY NON BELIEVERS the grk for pure is katharos, meaning without sin or blemish Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom of G-d. (vs 10) NEVER CITED BY NON BELIEVERS And the righteousness, is G-d's righteousness, not mankinds. Posted by antisocialist

     --you're a "non-believer" in Jesus. You're a "believer" in your interpretation of Jesus' words....but your interpretation is just that: an interpretation. and your interpretation is usually quite wrong. luckily for you Jesus loves you anyway. If he was the sort of Jesus you mis-believe in--you'd be in a for a world of hurt when you die.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 3:55pm

138. I'm not sure where the death penalty is listed in the Constitution, but if Larry can find it in the words of Jesus (and he has, according to his warped interpretation of the Bible), then I suppose you can find the death penalty in the Constitution.

     You Republicans can seemingly find anything your little hearts dream up, except weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, of course.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/28/2009 @ 11:03am

     "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

     The death penalty is right there in the 5th Amendment. Clearly, the Framers are saying here that WITH due process of law, a person CAN be deprived of life, liberty, or property.

     But I understand that liberals tend to see stark, no nonsense readings of the Constitution was "warped".

     And as for the WMDs in Iraq, hey, we were looking for the ones Pelosi, Kerry, both Clintons, Sandy Berger, and Madeline Albright all told us were there in 1998. Or did we Republicans dream those up too?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/28/2009 @ 5:12pm

139. I appeal to The Nation that if they want to discuss this issue or bring us an Act Now scenario they give a story where the players are worth our discussion. Maybe, a case where someone could be innocent? Or where there was a serious breach in court conduct or error in due process. This is not the case with Oliver and he is an horrible human not worth discussion. Some people should die.

     Posted by Extraneous at 10/28/2009 @ 1:40pm

     I fully understand your emotional response to Oliver.

     But you have to detach from defendant here.

     On this issue, The Court is on trial - not Oliver.

     Justice is Blind for a reason.

     Posted by OneVote at 10/28/2009 @ 5:45pm

140. But I understand that liberals tend to see stark, no nonsense readings of the Constitution was "warped". And as for the WMDs in Iraq, hey, we were looking for the ones Pelosi, Kerry, both Clintons, Sandy Berger, and Madeline Albright all told us were there in 1998. Or did we Republicans dream those up too? Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/28/2009 @ 5:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --many conservatives tend to see stark, no nonsense readings of the Bible as warped (such as Jesus admonishing people on property accumulation).

     cuts both ways bucko

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 6:31pm

141. AN EYE FOR AN EYE LEAVES EVERYONE BLIND:FIELDS V. BROWN AND THE CASE FORKEEPING THE BIBLE OUT OF CAPITAL SENTENCING DELIBERATIONS

     Northwestern University Law Review Vol. 103 - 1

     Courtney Rachel Baron

     The article urges the Supreme Court to grant certiorari to rule definitively on bible influenced capital sentencing and the conflict between Rule 606(b)s internal and external influences vis a vis the 6th Amendment.

     This appears to be a recurring issue of potential injustice and judicial confusion that the Supreme Court must address - like it or not.

     Posted by OneVote at 10/28/2009 @ 7:07pm

142. I fully understand your emotional response to Oliver. But you have to detach from defendant here. On this issue, The Court is on trial - not Oliver. Justice is Blind for a reason.

     Posted by OneVote at 10/28/2009 @ 5:45pm

     I realize that, maybe I am a little emotional about it. But even when I account for that I don't think there is a strong enough case that there was an undue influence on the jury by the bibles. As the 5th cicuit said, it was inappropriate. But the question to ask is would the sentence have been different if the bibles were not there? The burden does not rely on the court to defend itself. Instead their needs to be proof that it did bias their decision. We don't have that.

     Newpaper/magazine articles of jurors are interesting, but there is no guarentee they speak truths or those they quote spoke truths. So besides the point that I think Oliver is scum, I don't think their is sufficient evidence to indicate that there was an undue outside influence on the jurors.

     I have no reason to think they would have made a different decision if they did not have the bibles.

     Posted by Extraneous at 10/28/2009 @ 7:10pm

143. I have no reason to think they would have made a different decision if they did not have the bibles.

     Posted by Extraneous at 10/28/2009 @ 7:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     On my emotional level, I totally agree.

     And, I won't shed a single tear.

     Posted by OneVote at 10/28/2009 @ 7:37pm

144. BTW, of COURSE Jesus supported capital punishment.... he was a victim of it. Why wouldn't he?

     Posted by Mask at 10/28/2009 @ 3:51pm

     ah, the bright side of life.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2009 @ 9:32pm

145. And as for the WMDs in Iraq, hey, we were looking for the ones Pelosi, Kerry, both Clintons, Sandy Berger, and Madeline Albright all told us were there in 1998. Or did we Republicans dream those up too?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/28/2009 @ 5:12pm

     the sooner you get over this dem/repub nonsense, the better off you'll be, pawn.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2009 @ 9:34pm

146. But the question to ask is would the sentence have been different if the bibles were not there?

     Posted by Extraneous at 10/28/2009 @ 7:10pm

     nope.

     humans are very primitive.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2009 @ 9:35pm

147. last time I checked, the Supreme Court is a higher level of appeal than a Circuit court. Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 1:33pm |

     Keep backpedaling...you're still wrong as sin.

     Posted by snowball777 at 10/28/2009 @ 10:05pm

148. Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2009 @ 9:32pm

     Awww, no link?

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0

     Posted by srjenkins at 10/28/2009 @ 10:38pm

149. Maybe this will be a Miranda type of case. Violation of procedure to have any outside influences in the jury room, so to prevent it we send a message by giving a new trial to Oliver. Twist of fate for his victim's family, of course, but sometimes the only thing that will get the courts to follow procedures is to have real consequences for failing to do so.

     Posted by Mistral at 10/29/2009 @ 08:53am

150. Posted by Mistral at 10/29/2009 @ 08:53am |

     Yup, if you're going to kill a man (murderer or no), then do it by the book (no, not that one).

     Posted by snowball777 at 10/29/2009 @ 10:16am

151. Yup, if you're going to kill a man (murderer or no), then do it by the book (no, not that one).

     Posted by snowball777 at 10/29/2009 @ 10:16am

     oh, the irony.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 10/29/2009 @ 12:41pm

152. last time I checked, the Supreme Court is a higher level of appeal than a Circuit court. Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 1:33pm |

     Keep backpedaling...you're still wrong as sin.

     Posted by snowball777 at 10/28/2009 @ 10:05pm

     No I'm not; You still ignore my question;

     If there was such a violation of due process as you and others claim, why won't the Supreme Court hear his appeal?

     He doesn't need a single conservative justice to agree for a review in order for SCOTUS to take his appeal.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/29/2009 @ 1:33pm

153. If there was such a violation of due process as you and others claim, why won't the Supreme Court hear his appeal? Posted by antisocialist at 10/29/2009 @ 1:33pm |

     Because there were only questions of fact (did they influence the other jurors) and not law.

     We all admit he was guilty of the crime. The 5th circuit found that what they did was "egregious", but not within the scope of the "highly deferential standard" they are required to apply, as stated above (i.e. "who are we to tell Texas how to run their kangaroo courts").

     There wasn't anything for the SCOTUS to review.

     Posted by snowball777 at 10/29/2009 @ 2:45pm

154. No I'm not; You still ignore my question; If there was such a violation of due process as you and others claim, why won't the Supreme Court hear his appeal? He doesn't need a single conservative justice to agree for a review in order for SCOTUS to take his appeal. Posted by antisocialist at 10/29/2009 @ 1:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --someone else (me) explained this (twice)...so, for the third time (pay attention): Justice Kennedy rules the court. If the liberal justices know he's going to come down one way on a case, then why take advantage of the rule of 4 and grant cert just to have a prececent on the books you don't want?

     get it now?

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/29/2009 @ 3:50pm

155. --someone else (me) explained this (twice)...so, for the third time (pay attention): Justice Kennedy rules the court. If the liberal justices know he's going to come down one way on a case, then why take advantage of the rule of 4 and grant cert just to have a prececent on the books you don't want?

     get it now?

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/29/2009 @ 3:50p

     That's a copout.

     Obviously by default, you and Snowball acknowledge that there is no due process violation for Oliver.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/29/2009 @ 4:27pm

156. Posted by antisocialist at 10/29/2009 @ 4:27pm |

     Go screw yourself, ignoramus.

     Posted by snowball777 at 10/29/2009 @ 4:45pm

157. That's a copout.

     Obviously by default, you and Snowball acknowledge that there is no due process violation for Oliver.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/29/2009 @ 4:27pm

     It appears that they are still saying that there IS a due process violation, but they acknowledge that the Supreme Court disagrees. They are just saying that the Supreme Court is wrong. Nothing wrong with saying that, since the Supreme Court has been wrong before (Plessy v. Ferguson, Dredd Scott v. Sandford, Herschel V. Johnson).

     Posted by Mistral at 10/29/2009 @ 5:38pm

158. Posted by antisocialist at 10/29/2009 @ 4:27pm |

     Go screw yourself, ignoramus.

     Posted by snowball777 at 10/29/2009 @ 4:45pm

     Now that is the classic liberal debate response.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/29/2009 @ 7:09pm

159. Posted by antisocialist at 10/29/2009 @ 7:09pm |

     Well you're the fan of 'classic liberalism', so you'd know.

     When you're ready to fight fair instead of putting words in people's mouths and declaring the debate over when you can't make a valid point, we're here.

     Until then, you're just a chump with an ill-informed opinion.

     Posted by snowball777 at 10/29/2009 @ 10:06pm