Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Faith and Law
I am no legal expert, but sometimes the courts are just dumb. Consider two recent rulings as recounted by the NYTimes.
In the first case, the reasoning is summarized:
Note; however, that it is only the dissent that appears to mention religion, seems a bit narrow in focus don't you think. Were I on the bench, I would have written a different dissent, one that chastised even bringing up religion, but disagreed with the ruling on purely procedural grounds. Ruling that the outside research was ineffectual is a bit like letting someone off for robbery because the person robbed can afford it.
On the second AA case, the reasoning is not provided, only comments from AA, and the judges.
But here is the comment I really wanted to get to. These rulings make sense to me on church/state grounds. A religion and the ethics resulting from that religion are two different things. Like it or not, the ethics, as codified in law, of our society are largely Judeo-Christian. Now, those ethics are shared generally by many other faiths, but they are religious in origin - it is a historical fact. To consider religious writings, on an ethical basis strikes me as reasonably within the bounds of church/state separation.
Similarly, AA is a faith based organization. Now, it has no creed, and is generic enough in its faith statements that t does not constitute a church by any stretch of the imagination; however, the work it does is predicated on faith of some sort. To order a person into such a program is to order them to faith, generic though it may be. Therefore, this ruling also makes sense to me on church/state grounds.
The important point is that none of what I just reasoned is in the story. What saddens me is that the issue has become so convoluted. Whether in the decisions themselves, or simply in the reporting - it's painted good guy/bad guy - not reason and law.
Of course, that such irrationality would creep into uneducated and poorly instructed juries is something that is bound to happen and that I have experienced. But this is not even in front of a jury, these are appelate decisions, one of the court divisions designed to monitor and control such things.
Reason matters - it is time we got back to it in the legal system.
Technorati Tags:faith, law, appellate court, decision, church and state
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
The federal appeals court in San Francisco yesterday upheld a death sentence from a jury that had consulted the Bible’s teachings on capital punishment.If you read the piece you will find the reasoning behind the decisions is pretty convoluted. But then. of course, I am reading the NYTimes view of the reasoning and not the cases themselves, so who knows.
In a second decision on the role of religion in the criminal justice system, the same court ruled Friday that requiring a former prisoner on parole to attend meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous violated the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion.
In the first case, the reasoning is summarized:
Judge Pamela Ann Rymer, writing for the majority, said there was no need to decide whether there had been juror misconduct, “because even assuming there was, we are persuaded that White’s notes had no substantial and injurious effect or influence.”What's amazing about this case is the reasoning with, or in, dissent should not even involve religion. Juries are prohibited from considering materials not presented in the court room, therefore, the fact that a juror did outside research OF ANY SORT should tell the tale - the juror misconduct is the issue, not the content of his research.
In dissent, Judge Marsha S. Berzon said there was “no doubt that White engaged in unconstitutional misconduct by injecting his overnight biblical research into the deliberations.” Judge Ronald M. Gould, also dissenting, said the majority had endorsed “a theocratic jury room” in which jurors consider “the death penalty in light of Scripture.”
Note; however, that it is only the dissent that appears to mention religion, seems a bit narrow in focus don't you think. Were I on the bench, I would have written a different dissent, one that chastised even bringing up religion, but disagreed with the ruling on purely procedural grounds. Ruling that the outside research was ineffectual is a bit like letting someone off for robbery because the person robbed can afford it.
On the second AA case, the reasoning is not provided, only comments from AA, and the judges.
But here is the comment I really wanted to get to. These rulings make sense to me on church/state grounds. A religion and the ethics resulting from that religion are two different things. Like it or not, the ethics, as codified in law, of our society are largely Judeo-Christian. Now, those ethics are shared generally by many other faiths, but they are religious in origin - it is a historical fact. To consider religious writings, on an ethical basis strikes me as reasonably within the bounds of church/state separation.
Similarly, AA is a faith based organization. Now, it has no creed, and is generic enough in its faith statements that t does not constitute a church by any stretch of the imagination; however, the work it does is predicated on faith of some sort. To order a person into such a program is to order them to faith, generic though it may be. Therefore, this ruling also makes sense to me on church/state grounds.
The important point is that none of what I just reasoned is in the story. What saddens me is that the issue has become so convoluted. Whether in the decisions themselves, or simply in the reporting - it's painted good guy/bad guy - not reason and law.
Of course, that such irrationality would creep into uneducated and poorly instructed juries is something that is bound to happen and that I have experienced. But this is not even in front of a jury, these are appelate decisions, one of the court divisions designed to monitor and control such things.
Reason matters - it is time we got back to it in the legal system.
Technorati Tags:faith, law, appellate court, decision, church and state
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
