The following exerpts were taken from a news story filed by the Associated Press. The full story can be read at:
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040612%2F2301564593.htm&sc=1110
McALESTER, Okla. (AP) - Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols may have been spared the death penalty for a second time because a jailhouse conversion to Christianity gained him sympathy from the jury, lawyers in the case said Saturday...
...We all agreed that what went on in the jury room would stay in the jury room, he said.
But lawyers for both the prosecution and defense agreed jurors were influenced by Nichols' religious conversion...
...During the sentencing portion of his trial, defense witnesses testified that Nichols had worn out four Bibles through prayer and research, and that he wrote an 83-page letter to a prayer partner in Michigan while trying to make a point about Christian faith.
Terry Nichols' belief in God is so firm that he believes if the rapture occurred today he is going to heaven,'' defense attorney Creekmore Wallace told jurors...
...Lane said he believes Nichols was spared because of sympathy issues'' among some jurors, including for his religious conversion - one that prosecutors said conveniently began about the time state murder charges were filed against him.
I don't see Terry Nichols as being repentant necessarily,'' Lane said. I know that Mr. Nichols was not willing to accept responsibility.''
Wallace said Nichols' religious conversion is genuine, and that jurors may also have believed that Nichols was used by McVeigh, who was executed on federal murder charges on June 11, 2001....
Am I the only one who is stunned by what happened in the trial of Terry Nichols? He may have been saved by his prison conversion? Huh? The implicit statement here is that if you do not profess a faith in christianity, then you are deserving of death. I don't see how it's possible to come away from this story with any other conclusion. If Terry Nichols had not professed his faith in christianity then it is likely he may have been sentenced to death. Who knows what kind of fate would have befallen him if he had been an atheist. This is clearly a case of granting someone preferential legal treatment based on their religious beliefs (regardless of whether they are actually sincere). When I read this story, I was absolutely flabbergasted.
Originally posted by rwingettI hear your concern and outrage, Rob. I will make a couple of points and it is not my intent to disagree with you. As a Christian, I am as flabbergasted as you for different reasons. Typically, parole boards and perhaps jurors are fine outstanding citizens of their communities who attend church and profess beliefs on Sunday that bear absolutely no resemblence to anything practiced in this secular task. I'm not big fan of "deathbed conversions" but I do believe that there are people who experience "redemption" on some level from the consequences of their bad decisions. Karla Tucker was a prime example. She should have served life in prison and not been executed in my opinion. The best Gov. Bush could do was say "God bless Karla Faye tucker." Well that was charitable.
The following exerpts were taken from a news story filed by the Associated Press. The full story can be read at:
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040612%2F2301564593.htm&sc=1110
[i]McALESTER, Okla. (AP) - Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols may have been spared the death penalty for a seco ...[text shortened]... of whether they are actually sincere). When I read this story, I was absolutely flabbergasted.
Secondly, this state trial was simply about blood. The man was convicted on the federal level and it was a complete waste of time and resources to retry him. He's never getting out of prison.
OK< I know you're going to ask, "well what about someone converting to Islam. That's fine. Forgiveness, I believe, transcends religions.
of course we are shocked, and anyone but an extremist christian would be disapointed; but are we surprised?
i think a major overhaul of our legal system's would be nice.
the fact that a wealthy person can buy legal representaion that will sway the judge and jury is even more serious to my eyes; it really only ammounts to formalized bribery.
Originally posted by kirksey957Forgiveness is all well and fine. Whether they put him to death or not is not my concern here. But do not make a profession of christianity the basis on which you grant forgiveness. His religious beliefs should have no bearing on whether or not he is given the death penalty by the state of Oklahoma.
I hear your concern and outrage, Rob. I will make a couple of points and it is not my intent to disagree with you. As a Christian, I am as flabbergasted as you for different reasons. Typically, parole boards and perhaps jurors are fine outstanding citizens of their communities who attend church and profess beliefs on Sunday that bear absolutely no rese ...[text shortened]... about someone converting to Islam. That's fine. Forgiveness, I believe, transcends religions.
Originally posted by rwingettBut his professed faith is part of the whole package. He is allowed under law to talk about whatever he wants to save his skin. He could say "I'm a good cook in prison and can better serve people as a cook" or he can talk about a deprived childhood to gain sympathy. Or he could simply say he was sorry and deserved whatever he got. Survivors of victims often tell their stories so I guess it sometimes comes down to who's "workin' it the best."
Forgiveness is all well and fine. Whether they put him to death or not is not my concern here. But do not make a profession of christianity the basis on which you grant forgiveness. His religious beliefs should have [b]no bearing on whether or not he is given the death penalty by the state of Oklahoma. [/b]
Originally posted by kirksey957So you're saying that there's no justice for non-christians and atheists in Oklahoma? That all other things being equal, they should just expect to receive harsher penalties?
But his professed faith is part of the whole package. He is allowed under law to talk about whatever he wants to save his skin. He could say "I'm a good cook in prison and can better serve people as a cook" or he can talk about a deprived childhood to gain sympathy. Or he could simply say he was sorry and deserved whatever he got. Survivors of vic ...[text shortened]... ften tell their stories so I guess it sometimes comes down to who's "workin' it the best."
Originally posted by kirksey957I'm against the death penalty so it's ok with me if he escapes the chair/needle and gets life in prison or something like that.
But his professed faith is part of the whole package. He is allowed under law to talk about whatever he wants to save his skin. He could say "I'm a good cook in prison and can better serve people as a cook" or he can talk about a deprived childhood to gain sympathy. Or he could simply say he was sorry and deserved whatever he got. Survivors of vic ...[text shortened]... ften tell their stories so I guess it sometimes comes down to who's "workin' it the best."
But I think its a major problem if peoples faith or who's "workin' it the best" starts to interfeer on jurys and judges. Justice is suposed to be blind - only the factual crimes commited and the law should have an influence on the verdict.
Besides - being on or off the hook depending on whether you confess to christianity sounds frighfully familliar if we look some hundreds of years back
Originally posted by FeivelThat's true, they were living in Deckerville, Michigan. I've driven by there numerous times (never stopped in to visit, though).
Um...Last time I checked Rob was in Detroit which is quite far away from Oklahoma (but I do admit that McVeigh and I think Nichols were from Michigan).
Feivel
Originally posted by rwingettHmm...I have it from a good source of mine (in Novi) that you have a yellow Ryder parked in your driveway and there are numerous cc receipts for nitrogen based fertilizer in your name. Please tell us that when the FBI finally catches you there will be no conversion to try to avoid the death penalty you will face 🙂
I've driven by there numerous times (never stopped in to visit, though).
Feivel
Originally posted by FeivelThe FBI will never take me alive. 🙄
Hmm...I have it from a good source of mine (in Novi) that you have a yellow Ryder parked in your driveway and there are numerous cc receipts for nitrogen based fertilizer in your name. Please tell us that when the FBI finally catches you there will be no conversion to try to avoid the death penalty you will face 🙂
Feivel
Originally posted by rwingettSuch a good word flabbergasted, I too am flabbergasted! That unbelievable.....
The following exerpts were taken from a news story filed by the Associated Press. The full story can be read at:
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040612%2F2301564593.htm&sc=1110
[i]McALESTER, Okla. (AP) - Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols may have been spared the death penalty for a seco ...[text shortened]... of whether they are actually sincere). When I read this story, I was absolutely flabbergasted.
the fact that a wealthy person can buy legal representaion that will sway the judge and jury is even more serious to my eyes; it really only ammounts to formalized bribery.[/b]This is an interesting suggestion: In most cases, it would be hard to destroy the ability of someone's wealth from influencing a judge; in any society that values the rich at all, they will be naturally favoured.
On principle, its a different question. I think a system that might be accepted generally is for conscription of the best lawyers to represent those considering a death sentence (prosecution and defence.)
The lawyers will not suffer from the typical failure of socialist economies, as this will only account for the maximum sentence (eternity) and they will be answerable for losing such as serious case later in their career.
Furthermore, given the absolute and irrevocable nature of the penalty, it would seem appropriate to ensure that the court gets it right first time.