Not in most states I can't say for all the states.  But there is a legal issue here with the lying in wait clause.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yeah Yeah I have heard this before but the guy raped and brutally killed a 17 yr old girl. This is only a technacality if California wants to commute this thugs sentence on a technacality then so be it. I would hate to have to tell the victim's familes this after 25+ years.

And let's say its a religious decision. What if the judge said that he wouldn't be cool with putting anyone to death anymore because of it? How would you react?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Then that judge needs to be removed from the bench he took an oath to honor the laws in that state. By deciding not to give someone the DP even though his crimes are DP crimes, just on the grounds of his or her religon is not following the law.

Then that judge needs to be removed from the bench he took an oath to honor the laws in that state. By deciding not to give someone the DP even though his crimes are DP crimes, just on the grounds of his or her religon is not following the law.

 

Why? The death penalty isn't a requirement. It's a sentencing option.

Then that judge needs to be removed from the bench he took an oath to honor the laws in that state. By deciding not to give someone the DP even though his crimes are DP crimes, just on the grounds of his or her religon is not following the law.

 

 

 

It is his duty, awarded to him, in compliance with the laws of the state to consider the DP... not an automatic to sentence him to it.

It is his duty, awarded to him, in compliance with the laws of the state to consider the DP... not an automatic to sentence him to it.

 

Compliant with the laws of the state of California, he believed this man deserved the DP. Now, however, his religious outlook has changed and that should not be the deciding factor. Religion is not supposed to be part of the equation as per the US Constitution. This, my friends, is really what separation of church and state means.

 

EDIT: This is a prime example of where separation of church and state is truly applicable.

Edited February 25, 200620 yr by YASNY

Compliant with the laws of the state of California, he believed this man deserved the DP.  Now, however, his religious outlook has changed and that should not be the deciding factor.  Religion is not supposed to be part of the equation as per the US Constitution.  This, my friends, is really what separation of church and state means.

 

EDIT:  This is a prime example of where separation of church and state is truly applicable.

 

 

Which is why I commented that it might be a good idea if he stepped off the bench on this case.

 

Regardless, the law does not state that he has to give the death penalty. That appeared to be the question/point. That in itself has nothing to do with his beliefs.

Why? The death penalty isn't a requirement. It's a sentencing option.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because his crimes are DP crimes and his Religion can not have any influence on his decision. If he chooses not to use the DP because he doesn't think it fits the crimes is completely different and I have no problem with only when he invokes religion as his reason.

Why? The death penalty isn't a requirement. It's a sentencing option.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because his crimes are DP crimes and his Religion can not have any influence on his decision. If he chooses not to use the DP because he doesn't think it fits the crimes is completely different and I have no problem with only when he invokes religion as his reason.

Because his crimes are DP crimes and his Religion can not have any influence on his decision.  If he chooses not to use the DP because he doesn't think it fits the crimes is completely different and I have no problem with only when he invokes religion as his reason.

 

 

Getting a bit ahead of yourself, aren't you? He hasn't done anything yet.

Compliant with the laws of the state of California, he believed this man deserved the DP.  Now, however, his religious outlook has changed and that should not be the deciding factor.  Religion is not supposed to be part of the equation as per the US Constitution.  This, my friends, is really what separation of church and state means.

 

EDIT:  This is a prime example of where separation of church and state is truly applicable.

 

I've got to say, if this judge is making this decesion based on religion, I had better hear that the ACLU is going to fight to have this judge recused.