It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by OldDragger
These are not technicalites folks, these are the basic principles of justice.
I understand your point. It is well-taken.
But in legal situations failure to adhere to proper procedures is only applicable when there is a reasonable suspicion that such failure would have affected the outcome. That's not to simply say that the end justifies the means; it certainly does not! But in this case there is nothing to indicate that the removal of Bibles in the deliberation room would have made any difference at all. So, which would be more appropriate: to release a convicted murderer, denying closure to his surviving family and possibly allowing him to commit the same act again, or admonishing the jurors and perhaps placing a ruling into effect to forbid future Biblical reading in deliberations?
I would say the latter. Justice is not served in the former.
Did they miss the part, which read "thou shall not kill"?
You shall not murder.
Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.
Originally posted by OldDragger
Jurors are supposed to consider only the evidince and the law.
While jurors are entitled to whatever beliefs they choose in their PERSONAL LIVES, they are NOT entitled to bring those beliefs ( WHATEVER they may be) into the jury room.
Originally posted by amazing
I think the death penalty should be reserved for rapists and child molestors. Murder is not as bad a crime as that.