Originally posted by VILmausoleumOff topic. Go start your own thread. This is about preferential legal treatment for christians.
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 repre ...[text shortened]... ure of the penalty, it would seem appropriate to ensure that the court gets it right first time.
3 edits
Originally posted by rwingett
Off topic. Go start your own thread. This is about preferential legal treatment for christians.
...... or is this thread about alleged (!) preferential legal treatment for atheists pretending to be christians ? 🙄
First thing you have to establish is whether his conversion to Christianity really was the decisive factor in saving his life. Maybe the decisive factor was the fact that he showed remorse, a condition often (always?) connected with a truthfull conversion to Christianity. Now saving his life for showing remorse can easily be confused in the media with the fact of his conversion. The media, known for not digging further into cases than the usual half inch, could easily present this case as a case of preferential legal treatment for Christians. A scandal sells better than the dull truth.
Question: How are we going to find out the truth without intervention from the biased media, be they liberal, conservative or self-proclaimed "neutral" ?
Originally posted by kirksey957I believe kirksey957 is correct. And this is the penalty phase of the trial where less objective testimonies are allowed. This is the part were to killer's mother is allowed to cry before the jury that her son really is a good boy at heart and he's really a victim of his environment. :p
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."
Nichols was found guilty as charged, he just didn't get a death sentence. His conversion did not effect the charge against him. However, it is disappointing that for the penalty phase, Nichol's conversion got him any points in his favor (assuming it did). If he was truly converted, I'd expect him to be repentant and ready to pay the penalty for his crime.
I don't know the details, but I think a greater factor in his favor with the jury was how he seemed to be easily manipulated. Maybe his jail-house conversion played into this view of him.
A jail-house conversion should not benefit a defendant. But a good lawyer could make you feel sorry for someone because he's an atheist. I mean, I already feel sorry for most atheist. 🙁
Originally posted by rwingettI agree with you....
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.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe story says, "lawyers for both the prosecution and defense agreed the jurors were influenced by Nichols' religious conversion". This conversion (whether real, or not) was a prime factor in influencing some of the jurors to spare him. Although the story points out this connection, it does not condemn it. The story does not present it as a case of preferential treatment for christians. That is my interpretation, although it is one that seems inescapable to me. Nichols converted to christianity and was spared because of it. It is possible that he would still have been spared even if he had not done so, but his conversion appears to have been the prime factor contriibuting to his not receiving the death penalty.
...... or is this thread about alleged (!) preferential legal treatment for atheists pretending to be christians ? 🙄
First thing you have to establish is whether his conversion to Christianity really was the decisive factor in saving his life. Maybe the decisive factor was the fact that he showed remorse, a condition often (always?) connected with ...[text shortened]... rvention from the biased media, be they liberal, conservative or self-proclaimed "neutral" ?
Originally posted by ColettiSo all other things being equal, non-christians and atheists can expect harsher penalties than christians?
I believe kirksey957 is correct. And this is the penalty phase of the trial where less objective testimonies are allowed. This is the part were to killer's mother is allowed to cry before the jury that her son really is a good boy at heart and he's really a victim of his environment. :p
Nichols was found guilty as charged, he just didn't get ...[text shortened]... for someone because he's an atheist. I mean, I already feel sorry for most atheist. 🙁
But I would like to make one very important point here: Terry Nichols, whatever he may have been, was most likely not an atheist prior to his so-called conversion to christianity. It is likely that he would have already classified himself as a christian and that his conversion was merely from a passive christian to an active christian.
3 edits
Originally posted by rwingettThat is indeed the interpretation the author gives to the facts. You would have to investigate the jurors decision making a precise distinction between his showing remorse and his conversion.
The story says, "lawyers for both the prosecution and defense agreed the jurors were influenced by Nichols' religious conversion". This conversion (whether real, or not) was a prime factor in influencing some of the jurors to spare him. ...[text shortened]... rime factor contriibuting to his not receiving the death penalty.
It would also be wise to start an investigation into the truthfulness of his remorse and conversion.
.... maybe it turns out to be a remorseful man who deserved his life to be spared, or maybe he was just faking his remorse and had to convince the jurors of his alleged remorse, so he "converts" to Christianity.
If the man was spared simply because of the fact that he is a Christian now, well that raises a few questions here and there, but if he was spared because he showed genuine remorse, there is no problem I guess. In the latter case it may superficially come across as a case of preferential legal treatment for Christians, but in reality it is a case of sparing a man's life because he is showing remorse and his conversion to Christianity is merely confusing the issue.
Originally posted by ivanhoeAre you equating remorse with christianity? Could not an atheist feel equal remorse? The sincerity of his conversion is irrelevant. It shouldn't be a factor at all. If they want to pardon him for being remorseful, that would be one thing. But the story seems to indicate that he was pardoned specifically because he converted to christianity.
That is indeed the interpretation the author gives to the facts. You would have to investigate the jurors decision making a precise distinction between his showing remorse and his conversion.
It would also be wise to start an investigation into the truthfulness of his remorse and his conversion.
.... maybe it turns out to be a remorseful man who de ...[text shortened]... e remorse, there is no problem I guess. In the latter case it may come across as a case of
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingett"Are you equating remorse with christianity?"
Are you equating remorse with christianity? Could not an atheist feel equal remorse? The sincerity of his conversion is irrelevant. It shouldn't be a factor at all. If they want to pardon him for being remorseful, that would be one thing. ...[text shortened]... e was pardoned specifically because he converted to christianity.
No, I am not.
"Could not an atheist feel equal remorse? "
Yes, that is EXACTLY my point.
Suppose he showed truthfull remorse. But he decides to untruthfully convert to Christianity in order to convince the jurors of his remorse. ( Remember his life is at stake)
If I were a juror I would still save his life, in spite of the fact that his conversion is not truthfull and he is still an atheist. That doesn't change my decision a bit. The remorsefulness is the criterion whether to save his life or not, NOT the political or religious convictions the man holds, included his (alleged ?) conversion.
Now it could happen, it happens all the time in difficult and complicated matters, that the IMPRESSION was made in the media I was saving his life because of the fact that he converted to Christianity. In particular if the media would emphasise the fact that I am a Christian as well. A great media story is born.
Rwingett: " The sincerity of his conversion is irrelevant."
Indeed it is.
Rwingett: "But the story seems to indicate that he was pardoned specifically because he converted to christianity."
Yes, but before jumping to conclusions and follow the media without using our heads, we would need to investigate this case further as I have indicated in previous posts.
If indeed it were the case that his (alleged) conversion saved his life, I would state that this is not correct from the point of view of the jurors, but I certainly would advise the atheist in question to do the same if I were to be his counsellor and if I happened to know how these jurors little grey cells usually operate ...... as you know I am against Capital Punishment .....
But the question remains: "How did the jurors reach their conclusion of saving his life"
And even in the case of his showing remorse AND converting truthfully to Christianity I would vote for saving his life, not because of his conversion but because he showed remorse. Man, together with the fact that I'm a Christian that would create a huge scandal. I can allready see the headlines ...... The one even more dripping from moral indignation than the other.
Originally posted by ivanhoeAlthough the story hints that his conversion may have been insincere, several people on the jury were apparently convinced otherwise. Why would you doubt it? I think all you're trying to do here is keep christianity from becoming tarnished by its association with the likes of Terry Nichols. Your attempts to claim that he is an atheist are ludicrous. At no time does the story claim he was an atheist. His "conversion" in all likelihood was from passive christianity to active christianity (which I stated in an earlier thread). Furthermore, your attempts to label the whole thing as a media inspired anti-christian feeding frenzy are ridiculous. Always trying to cast yourself in the role of the poor, helpless victim. Well I'm not buying it.
"Are you equating remorse with christianity?"
No, I am not.
"Could not an atheist feel equal remorse? "
Yes, that is EXACTLY my point.
Suppose he showed truthfull remorse. But he decides to untruthfully convert to Christianity in order to convince the jurors of his remorse. ( Remember his life is at stake)
If I were a juror I would still sav ...[text shortened]...
But the question remains: "How did the jurors reach their conclusion of saving his life"
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettOh, pleaaaaaaaaaase Rwinget ........
Although the story hints that his conversion may have been insincere, several people on the jury were apparently convinced otherwise. Why would you doubt it? I think all you're trying to do here is keep christianity from becoming tarnishe ...[text shortened]... n the role of the poor, helpless victim. Well I'm not buying it.
If you read my posts you will notice that being an atheist or what ever before his "conversion" doesn't change a bit the spirit of the things I was saying.
Rwingett: "Although the story hints that his conversion may have been insincere, several people on the jury were apparently convinced otherwise."
Apparently ? Can you explain why this is "apparently" the case ?
I have to spoil a lovely debate by agreeing with everybody. 😀
First, I agree with Rob that IF the article is accurate, it's a disgrace. But second, I agree with ivanhoe that you really can't trust newspaper articles to get anything right.
IMHO, it's the principle rather than the actual facts of the specific case that make it more compelling as an issue for "debate" but on the other hand, the jury is there to weigh all the factors and decide whether death is the most appropriate sentence. I really don't know to what extent remorse is supposed to count in sentencing, but we all know that it does. A (sincere) religious conversion ought to be some sort of evidence for remorse. I am less happy that a "religious" conversion seems likely to carry more weight with a jury than a "philosophical" one.
In fact, I rather like Coletti's suggestion that it's really evidence that he was easily manipulated. 🙂 Somehow I doubt that this was the decisive factor, though. Overall, I am distressed that the decision appears to have been decided on the issue of his alleged jailhouse conversion.
I don't like second-guessing the jury, since I don't know what transpired in their deliberations. OTOH, I have served on one jury (it turned out, eventually, to be a hung jury in a murder case) and I have to say that the level of rationality in the deliberations was lower than I would have hoped. But I am still something of an idealist and am not yet convinced that there is a better way.
Paul
Originally posted by rwingett"Although the story hints that his conversion may have been insincere, several people on the jury were apparently convinced otherwise."
Although the story hints that his conversion may have been insincere, several people on the jury were apparently convinced otherwise. Why would you doubt it? I think all you're trying to do here is keep christianity from becoming tarnished by its association with the likes of Terry Nichols. Your attempts to claim that he is an atheist are ludicrous. At no ...[text shortened]... ways trying to cast yourself in the role of the poor, helpless victim. Well I'm not buying it.
As I've pointed out even in the case his conversion was sincere that would NOT be a reason to sentence him to death nor would it have been a reason to do so. It is irrelevent what the jurors might think of his conversion being sincere or insincere. It is irrelevent as to deciding what his punishment should be. The fact that the prosecuters and the defence attorneys are stating that the jurors interpretation was such and such regarding his conversion doesn't tell anything about the DECISIVE criteria used by the jurors. We simply don't know how things developed in the jurors room.
"Why would you doubt it? I think all you're trying to do here is keep christianity from becoming tarnished by its association with the likes of Terry Nichols. Your attempts to claim that he is an atheist are ludicrous."
I'm sorry to have labled this gentleman as an atheist, it wasn't meant as a derogatory term, because in my view it simply isn't. I assumed that it would be necessary in order to have a conversion, but that is clearly wrong. You can also convert from judaism to Christianity and from Christianity to Islam. However I don't think you can convert from a religion to being an atheist. Anyway .....
I'm not claiming that his conversion is sincere nor am I claiming the opposite. For him I hope it is sincere.
Rwingett: "I think all you're trying to do here is keep christianity from becoming tarnished by its association with the likes of Terry Nichols."
Man, if the criterium of joining a community of immaculate human beings were to be the criterium to join Christianity I certainly would have decided not to join.
Rwingett: "Your attempts to claim that he is an atheist are ludicrous."
Maybe he is an atheist, maybe he isn't. I'm not claiming either one. Maybe he is a Christian. maybe he isn't. I'm not claiming either one either.
We both agree: This shouldn't play a role in deciding to save his life yes or no. Apparently (!) you are shocked to find out we agree on this issue.
.
1 edit
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.
Curious, had he been a Christian who had blown up the building and then converted to athiesm, would that helped ?
Either way, I agree. If his soul is saved he has little to fear. He should receive the death penalty.