Cross Eyed

So it turns out that if you're on a jury and you consult the Bible or other religious texts that your ruling can simply be disregarded.

Yesterday Robert Harlan, rapist and murderer, had his sentence changed to life without the possibility of parole instead of death, which was the court's original ruling in 1995. This decision was made because the defense lawyers learned that jurors had consulted scripture from the Bible such as "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" while in deliberation.

It seems to me that they've taken things a bit out of context in order to make this new judgement considering this particular topic is mentioned numerous times in the Bible. Let's take a look at a few verses in whole.

Exodus 21:22-25
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Leviticus 24:19-20
"If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured."

Deuteronomy 19:16-21
"If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you. The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."

Having reviewed those verses it makes me wonder why perhaps the most relevant rebuttal to this court dispute was not mentioned.

Matthew 5:38-39 Jesus (Sermon on the Mount)
"You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

If you consider this last scripture then it could be said that the jurors may have been swayed to let the criminal, Robert Harlan, go free. The jurors had one job, to determine if the accused was guilty or innocent based upon the evidence. They found him guilty and he was sentenced to death. The end decision wasn't solely based around a Bible verse but from what the entire jury agreed upon. By rescinding their sentence of nearly ten years ago the court has only opened the door to further disputes if any future juror makes reference to any text or teaching that has influenced their own moral standards. In my opinion you can't make a very effective juror if you aren't able to distinguish between right and wrong and understand how you came to that conclusion.

Perhaps the even bigger question remains if jurors are not allowed to reference the Bible (or the Qur'an, Torah, Tao te Ching, Atharva, etc.) then why does anyone who gives testimony in court have to swear on the Bible? I guess we can swear on it but God forbid we actually read it.