Dear ignorant jurors in Colorado...
Perhaps you should study ancient texts and their meaning before you use them to condemn someone to death.
Today, the Colorado Supreme Court threw out the death penalty meted out to Robert Harlan, who was found guilty of kidnapping, raping, and murdering a cocktail waitress in 1994. The sentence was discarded because during deliberations, some of the jurors studied the Bible in order to help them determine Harlan's sentence. Specifically, they studied and quoted these verses
Exodus 21:23-25: But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty 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 24:19-21: If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him. Thus the one who kills an animal shall make it good, but the one who kills a man shall be put to death.
The problem here is twofold: First, the jurists violated proper procedure in gathering evidence to help them deliberate. Second, they (just like the Pharisees and thousands of other Christians) misinterpreted the Bible verses in question. The purpose of the ancient Hebrew texts was to restrain retaliation, not encourage it. But let's not ever let fake fundamentalism interfere with scholarship.
Today, the Colorado Supreme Court threw out the death penalty meted out to Robert Harlan, who was found guilty of kidnapping, raping, and murdering a cocktail waitress in 1994. The sentence was discarded because during deliberations, some of the jurors studied the Bible in order to help them determine Harlan's sentence. Specifically, they studied and quoted these verses
Exodus 21:23-25: But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty 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 24:19-21: If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him. Thus the one who kills an animal shall make it good, but the one who kills a man shall be put to death.
The problem here is twofold: First, the jurists violated proper procedure in gathering evidence to help them deliberate. Second, they (just like the Pharisees and thousands of other Christians) misinterpreted the Bible verses in question. The purpose of the ancient Hebrew texts was to restrain retaliation, not encourage it. But let's not ever let fake fundamentalism interfere with scholarship.
posted by Diane at 7:39 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
DED-
what makes you think that the jurors misinterpreted these verses?
i will assume your premise that these verses are meant to restrain retaliation, but the retaliation they mean to restrain would be any that goes BEYOND a 'life for a life'. for example, exodus 21:23 should be read to counsel against sentencing Harlan and the rest of his family to death. Harlan killed one person, and exodus is clear that taking his life would be a just punishment.
christian fundamentalists have been misinterpreting parts of the bible for a hundred years now, but this time, they got it right. the problem is not that they misinterpret a particular passage, it is that they tend to pick the harshest, most antiquated, old testament passage to babble about while completely ignoring Jesus' message of love and compassion.
of course, the bigger problem is what this case is all about. that is, that the religious right believes it is okay to thrust their ignorant 'morality' upon the rest of us.
By
Anonymous, at
7:34 PM
Literally speaking, of course you are correct. But since there is a history of some fundamentalist-type Christians misinterpreting the phrase as giving them permission to exact revenge, it is my argument that it was this spirit of misinterpretation that motivated the jurors. After all, they didn't need to look in the Bible to find out that the death penalty was a possible outcome of their deliberations. The judge told them that. So they were searching, in my opinion, for "spiritual" guidance, not technical guidance.
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. And you are absolutely right about the bigger problem.
By
Diane, at
7:52 PM
Actually, the versus are likely misinterpreted, in a technical manner.
The original phrasing in the two sections is "X tachat X" (Ayin tachat Ayin is eye for an eye, for example). The problem is that there are other situations in law, including one that shows up in Exodus 21:36, where "X tachat X" clearly does NOT mean taking one in exchange for another. 21:36 refers to an ox that habitually gores other things, and in this case the owner fails to guard it. The phrase "shor tachat shor" appears, meaning that an ox should be given to compensate the owner of the gored one (obviously, having the owner of the live ox kill his ox is going to accomplish nothing). Thus, tachat typically refers to monetary compensation. The implication isn't that someone's eye should be poked out, but that they should pay the monetary value of an eye. If you turn to Exodus 21 and look up to verses 12-13, the death sentence is specified for premeditated murder, but not for manslaughter. That might have had an influence, but if they weren't looking at them, then clearly they were looking in the wrong section.
Of course, someone reading the bible without a Hebrew education- say, a christian fundamentalist consulting the bible during jury duty- isn't likely to pick up on this, since the english phrasings are significantly different between the goring ox and an eye for an eye.
By
Anonymous, at
8:41 PM
Actually it was the Pharisees that would agree with your argument, they were the Jewish progressives at the time despite the bum rap Christians seem to give them.
By
Anonymous, at
8:16 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Diane, at
9:02 AM
Right you are. I don't know where my brain was when I said that.
By
Diane, at
9:03 AM
prada handbags, longchamp outlet, tory burch outlet, louis vuitton outlet, michael kors outlet, oakley sunglasses wholesale, christian louboutin, louis vuitton, jordan shoes, nike outlet, michael kors outlet online, louis vuitton, uggs on sale, ray ban sunglasses, christian louboutin uk, michael kors outlet online, longchamp outlet, uggs outlet, chanel handbags, gucci handbags, replica watches, nike air max, louis vuitton outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet online, kate spade outlet, uggs outlet, burberry outlet, ray ban sunglasses, christian louboutin outlet, michael kors outlet store, longchamp outlet, oakley sunglasses, oakley sunglasses, replica watches, tiffany and co, louis vuitton outlet, prada outlet, christian louboutin shoes, burberry handbags, michael kors outlet, oakley sunglasses, ugg boots, nike air max, tiffany jewelry
By
oakleyses, at
9:05 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home