That is the refrain we've heard chanted outside the hospice in the Schiavo case. But now, we see that this idea has not only shaped that situation, but now, a death penalty case as well.
The Colorado Supreme Court has thrown out a death penalty conviction because the jurors discussed the Bible during their deliberations.
Harlan was sentenced to death in 1995, but defense lawyers learned that five jurors had looked up such Bible verses as "eye for eye, tooth for tooth," copied them and discussed them while deliberating behind closed doors.
Defense attorney Kathleen Lord, arguing before the state Supreme Court last month, said the jurors had gone outside the law. "They went to the Bible to find out God's position on capital punishment," she said.
Prosecutors countered, saying jurors should be allowed to refer to the Bible or other religious texts during deliberations.
Harlan, the defendant, was in a cocaine/alcohol induced rage when he raped and killed 25 year old Rhanda Maloney.
While jurors obviously bring their own life experiences into the jury room, it is their solemn duty to judge the case solely on its facts, and to impose a punishment according to the law. But what law?
Here, the Court admitted that the Bible is considered a "code of law" by many. But it went on to say that it was possible at least one juror was swayed by these Biblical passages (a death penalty verdict must be unanimous).
I thought this was an important story to highlight not only because of its legal implications (the case may be appealed to the United States Supreme Court), but also because it is yet another stark example of the current battle between the Rule of Law and the so-called Rule of God.
Focus of the Family, never a group to shy away from an opportunity to flame the culture war, had this to say:
"Today's ruling further confirms that the judicial branch of our government is nearly bereft of any moral foundation," said Tom Minnery, the group's vice president for government and public policy.
And there it is. The explicit call to arms for a war on the judicial branch.
It's not like we should be surprised. The right has been quite methodical and strategic about this, first baptising judges who enforce the law as "activist judges with an agenda." Then the introduction of the gay marriage amendments in direct controvention of American principles of equality and justice. But the Schiavo case has brought this assault against the judicial branch to a fever pitch.
We have a long, hard war to fight. And that war is for the very integrity of our judicial system and our way of life.
They think terrorists are the greatest threat to our way of life, but I would take the less popular position and argue that it is they, those who want to essentially eliminate the third branch of government, that pose the greatest danger to American democracy.
It is they who want to shred the constitution (can't we just crop out Article III and tape it back together?) and it is they who think the Executive or the Legislative Branch are more capable of dispensing justice than the courts themselves.
And why do they think that? Why do they think it is right and proper to have a President follow their interpretation of God's law? Why do they hate the judicial branch so much?
Because they hate neutrality.
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Simple enough. No need to weigh the facts or balance the interests. Following their interpretation of the Bible results in a stripping away of the presumption of innocence and an automatic stoning of anyone they deem to have violated God's law. It's that black and white, "with us or against us" mentality that started with the Executive Branch and is seeping into every facet of our society.
That is why the judge is the Enemy. Because he comes to the bench armed not with God's laws, which lead to an inevitable conclusion, but rather with a book of rules, a method of decision, a roadmap of analysis in which both sides are given full and equal time to present their arguments.
But they don't want both sides. They want to take the Bible and read from it in open court; they want to quote passages they read as banning homosexuality (while skipping over others that talk about slavery, stoning, etc.). They want to replace case law with their law. They don't want "deliberations" in the jury room, they want condemnations, an effortless flip to chapter and verse that tells them exactly what they think they should do.
But being a good Christian and being a good citizen demands more than that.
There is nothing more undemocratic that I can think of in recent years than this unprecendented assault on our judicial system. We should prepare ourselves, for it will be a tough fight.
Update [2005-3-29 10:26:9 by georgia10]:: For those with westlaw, the opinion is posted, 2005 WL 697020. From the opinion:
Juror Eaton-Ochoa took notes on two passages. The first was Leviticus 24:20-21: [FN3] "[f]racture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him. And whoever kills an animal shall restore it, but whoever kills a man shall be put to death." The second was Romans 13:1: "[l]et every soul be subject to the governing authorities for there is no authority except from God and the authorities that exist are appointed by God."[...]
Juror Eaton-Ochoa brought a Bible into the jury room Saturday morning when deliberations resumed. Other jurors testified that more than one juror brought in a Bible, and that one of the Bibles present contained a study index with which a reader could locate passages on particular subjects. Jurors Eaton-Ochoa and Trujillo also brought their notes on biblical passages into the jury room. Juror Eaton-Ochoa showed juror Cordova the Bible text from Leviticus commanding the death penalty for murder, as well as the Romans text. By noon that day, the jury returned a unanimous verdict imposing the death penalty on Harlan.