Good versus Evil – The saga continues
I’m not sure what media organizations did for news before the “values” war. We now seem to have a daily example of judicial activism or bible bashing. The Colorado Supreme Court was correct in its decision to commute the death sentence of Robert Harlan to life without parole. If jurors had to turn to the bible to convince themselves and others that the death penalty was the most suitable punishment, then the justices made the right decision. I’m just perplexed as to why there were two dissenting opinions in this case. What were they thinking?
Again we are going to hear a lot of outrage from evangelicals saying that the judicial system has lost touch with reality and is fostering anti-religious decisions that denigrate the fabric of our beloved constitution. Not true. If the case involved a Jewish defendant and the jurors turned to Mein Kampf to “help” them elucidate a punishment would that be fair? I’m sure those two judges wouldn’t be dissenting on that one.
Again we are going to hear a lot of outrage from evangelicals saying that the judicial system has lost touch with reality and is fostering anti-religious decisions that denigrate the fabric of our beloved constitution. Not true. If the case involved a Jewish defendant and the jurors turned to Mein Kampf to “help” them elucidate a punishment would that be fair? I’m sure those two judges wouldn’t be dissenting on that one.
posted by mochi at 6:23 PM
6 Comments:
I think that the only relevent reference materials a jury should be allowed to use are the transcripts of the case and a legal library. Anything else simply clouds the issue. In fact, using a bible to determine a verdict sounds unconstitutional to me. Theocracy marches on.
Shea, I hate to differ with your statement of "theocracy marches on". I think one has to take a look at human nature.
What applies to physics often applies to us: "all actions cause an equal and opposite reaction". Americans, by nature, are a rather independent bunch. I think our heritage contributes toward this greatly. When an edict is issued by either government or court that goes against what we want to do, or what we think is right, then there is an equal and opposite reaction. Normally quiet people will often react negatively (or positively) if they are feeling pushed. I'll use my daughter for an example. When I issue an edict that goes against what my daughter wants the backlash from her is often equal to the severity of the edict.
It is more often human nature that resists radical change. An example would be:
1. People's reaction to allowing same-sex marriage. This is something new, to some, radical, and since people feel it is being IMPOSED upon society, there is a reaction to it.
People have always been resistant to change, and they will often turn to familiar sources for affirmation. This doesn't mean that society can be termed as "theocratic" any more than saying that the Chinese communists can be called "theocratic" for Tiananmen Square. (Just draw the important parallels on this example, don't read too much into it:)
Again, just because people look for sources of affirmation doesn't mean a society can be defined by that source of affirmation. If you think we have become more theocratic, just compare 2005 to 1905.
Now keep in mind that ALL change is not ALL good, just like ALL conservation is not ALL good. Progressive does not always equal Progression either.
As always, look forward to your comments.
-Jack
P.S. Agree with your assessment, Mochi
Im certain there are many many good Evangelical people, and others that are also upset about the ruling, but the Bible is not the exclusive law of the land, and not everyone in this country is a Christian. Given this, and the openness to people of all different backgrounds we pride ourselves on, it strikes me as being unconstitutional if the Bible was used as a means of arriving at this controversial decision. Sure, there should be moral foundation, but just because the Bible itself is not to be used as "the people's guide to judicial verdicts," does not mean that the judicial system is lacking in the moral department, as people from Foundation for the Family have stated. And from CNN, "Jay Horowitz, a former assistant U.S. attorney and former University of Denver law professor, said the law bars jurors from considering evidence not presented at trial." We are founded on Judeo-Christian principles, but does that mean the Bible's literal words should be incorporated into deliberations? Bear in mind, that the Bible's teachings and sayings have always had different interpretations far and wide. Therefore, is something that is itself ambiguous in many of its teachings a means of deciding between life and death? And again, my perpetual bitching: we lose sight of what matters; a family having violently lost a loved one, and a family having to cope with one of theirs being a murderer. I would just like to emphasize that this decision does not make Harlan an innocent man; he is still a monster who deserves to spend the rest of his life in jail. The bottom line and the most important thing, whatever one's stance: this man has been removed from society.
Right on, CH!
JM - I can see how human nature might lead people look to those familiar sources for affirmation. However, I think the law exists (partly, at least) to prevent us from acting according to our nature. A deterrent against violent reactions, and other things.
You're right about that, Shea.
-Jack
Post a Comment
<< Home