Judges who rely on the Bible

[Toto]

Biblical quotation OK in case, court rules (http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050107/NEWS01/501070358/1056/news01)

The case began in 1998 when Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Melba Marsh sent James Arnett to prison for repeatedly raping an 8-year-old girl.

Marsh quoted a Bible verse that described drowning as an appropriate punishment for those who harm children. Arnett appealed, arguing that the judge's religious beliefs influenced her decision.

In its 2-1 decision Thursday, a panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the sentence should stand because the Bible was just one factor in determining the sentence.

. . .
But the dissenting judge, Eric Clay, said religion played too great a role in Arnett's sentence and warned that the case sets a dangerous precedent.

"If the Constitution sanctions such direct reliance on religious sources ... then there is nothing to stop prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers from regularly citing religious sources like the Bible, the Talmud or the Koran to justify their respective positions," Clay wrote.

"The judgments of trial courts could begin to resemble the fatwas of religious clerics."

. . .

This is a terrible case on the facts. You don't need to read the Bible to think that someone who abuses an 8 year old girl (starting when she was 5) should be strung up.

From here (http://www.onnnews.com/Global/story.asp?S=2774976) "We reach this conclusion despite the fact that reasonable minds could certainly question the propriety of the trial judge making mention of the Bible at all in her sentencing decision," Judge Paul Matia wrote for the majority.

The Christian Coalition (http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1999/03/24/loc_christian_coalition.html) filed an amicus brief in support of the judge: “The Christian Coalition's position is that religion, especially Christianity, is one of the most commonly discriminated-against parties in our society,� said the group's attorney, David Langdon. “Judges shouldn't have to check their religious rights at the courthouse steps.�

The opinion is here (http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0005p-06.pdf) (pdf format)

[Feather]

:crying:

Just another slip down that slope. I don't even know how to combat it, or if it can be effectively stopped at this point. Maybe the cancer just has to eat itself to death first.

[philian]

I think I've heard about this one before. The thing that concerns me is that the fundies are very likely going to use this to show that the "Bleeding Heart Liberals" are letting baby rapers walk free.

Also disconcerting is that this guy may actully go free because of this judge.

[Toto]

The guy will not go free. He pled guilty, and the only question is his sentence (51 years vs a smaller number of years.)

[BigBlue2]

This is a terrible case on the facts. You don't need to read the Bible to think that someone who abuses an 8 year old girl (starting when she was 5) should be strung up.
That's exactly right. This whole drama is simply the result of the original judge not being able to keep godcrap out of her judgement. A little self-control from Ms Biblethumper and this Arnett character would be doing his 51 years without anyone kicking up a stink.

[fromtheright]

If the sentence was within the limits allowed by the law, I don't care what the judge's motivation is. Whether the judge's justification is from the Bible, the Humanist Manifesto, or Jefferson's statutes for Virginia, it is true, and I suspect the maximum sentence reflects that. The best part will be the offender's "social status" in the prison population, i.e., Bubba's "prison bitch" (to borrow a Bob and Tom song title).

I think the Supreme Court will deny cert.

[Opisthobranch]

More grist for the fundy-favoring, right-wing media mill, I'm afraid.

No matter how strongly and carefully you phrase your displeasure with the judge, the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world will make it sound like you want the guy to go free. A church/state separation spokesperson would have to say something like:

"If there were justice in the world, the judge would be censured and the sentence increased to the maximum 100 years. The bible verse in question was an appeal for moderation and should never have been used as a sentencing guideline."

Language like this cannot be misunderestimated.