I found this on Usenet, and as such don’t have a link to it.
[/quote] Court: Prosecutors Can’t Invoke God for Death Penalty
November 6, 2000 8:50 pm EST
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A federal appeals court panel overturned a death sentence passed against a convicted murderer on Monday, saying prosecutors should not have argued that God sanctioned capital punishment…
{edited for copyright infringement. --Gaudere}
[/quote]
Personally, I agree that God should not have been mentioned. It is wrong to start confusing “God’s law” and man’s law, especially in a court which is supposed to represent a country that does not have an official religion (even though they make people swear on the Bible).
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Six months, four weeks, one day, 23 hours, 6 minutes and 44 seconds.
8518 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,064.81.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 1 day, 13 hours, 50 minutes.
Nope, sorry, it’s a copyrighted article from Reuters. Here it is: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001107/ts/crime_god_dc_2.html “Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.” Do not post the full text of articles that are copyrighted; if you even think they may be copyrighted, err on the side of caution and do not post more than minor excerpts. I will not feel obligated to search the news outlets to find a link to anyone’s story either. Thank you.
Maybe it has something to do with the bible itself prohibiting swearing (Matthew 5:34-37)
In Ohio it’s in the constitution. Just replace ‘swear’ with ‘affirm’ and leave out the ‘…so help me god’. An oath and an affirmation hold the same weight under the law.
But the prob is, of course, that the Jury might not see it that way.
“Oh, that guy’s a darned evil Atheist. He must have killed little Timmy.”
I’m not trying to say anything bad about anyone, but it seems that the possibility is there that the Jury might not see the affirmations the same way. Even Unca Cece said it, what’s perjury compared to the wrath of a Vengeful God?
Well, Matt several Xian sects forbid swearing to G-d. Of the top of my head, these religions include Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Quakers. (Of these three, I’d only swear to be correct about the Quakers [insert groan here]). In fact, the option to affirm rather than swear was originally offered in many jurisdictions to accomodate Quakers rather than atheists.
As for the OP, I agree that the prosecutor shouldn’t invoke G-d’s laws to the jury. It presents too much of an opportunity for confusion, as man’s laws are what are at issue in a courtroom, not g-d’s.
I am more ambivalent in situations where jury members invoke g-d during deliberation. I recall a challenge to a death penalty a few years back where a juror felt pressured into voting for death after the jury foreman led the jury in prayer. I don’t recall the end result of the appeal.
This guy was convicted of 4 murders committed in 1984. He got death for one, and life w/o parole for the others. In 1992 the CA Supreme Court upheld this guy’s death sentence, because they thought the error was harmless. The current appellate court disagrees. “The court left open the question of whether invocation of religious authority during the penalty phase of a capitol case is prejudicial per se, finding instead that Sandoval suffered actual prejudice.” (LA Daily Journal, 11/7/00)
The justice who wrote the opinion felt that the attorney’s reference to “God’s law” violated the purpose of the closing argument, which to instruct the jury in what it needs to decide and what evidence is relevant.
The court upheld the murder convictions, but overturned the death sentence. (Sandoval v. Calderon, 9th circuit, 11/6/00)
