The Bible will set you free

[TechBear_Seattle]

Reprinted in full from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070426/ap_on_fe_st/defendant_bible_passage

Ohio judge frees man after Bible quiz

CINCINNATI - A man arrested on Wednesday for allegedly trying to use a stolen credit card at a drugstore got a break from a judge after passing a sort of Bible quiz.

When Eric Hine appeared in court this morning, his attorney described him as a church-goer, hoping the judge would set a low bond.

Hamilton County Municipal Court Judge John Burlew was skeptical and asked Hine to recite the 23rd Psalm.

He did: all six verses. Some in the courtroom applauded.

Burlew was satisfied and released Hine on a $10,0000 appearance bond, meaning he'll have to pay that amount if he doesn't show up for his next court date.

:mad:

[YOY]

1. Shoulda recited these lines:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[southpaw]

2. So much for the separation clause...

I can quote the 23rd psalm! And I'm an atheist!

I'm gonna memorize the entire first paragraph of Darwin's 'Origin of Species', and I fully expect that being able to quote it to a judge will get me released on my own recognizance...

yeah, that's gonna happen.

[Zebedeo]

22. There is no separation clause n/t

*

[Zensea]

3. This has nothing to do with the separation of church and state

The judge was testing whether the claim of being a regular church-goer had any credence.
Whether the fact that the man was able to recite the 23rd Psalm proves that or not, looks like the judge thought so.
Plus, it's not like the guy got set free either, despite the misleading headline in the original article.
He still has to come back to court for the actual trial.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. I never said it did

I am disgusted at the presumably light bail solely because the accused could "prove" that he was a church-goer. Aside from the fact that many atheists can recite the 23rd Psalm, how many pastors and other "devout church-goers" get convited every year of spousal abuse, murder, drug crimes, soliciting prostitutes and the like?

It revolts me that a judge would make allowances on the basis of presumed attendance at religious services.

[Zensea]

8. Yeah, the making allowances bit is irritating

The initial premise that being a regular church-goer speaks to character definitely has its flaws.

[WhollyHeretic]

6. It absolutely does.

The judge let him off without posting any money because he was a regular church goer.

[Zensea]

7. Nope

Burlew was satisfied and released Hine on a $10,0000 appearance bond, meaning he'll have to pay that amount if he doesn't show up for his next court date.

Judge didn't let him off either, there's still going to be a trial.

Apparently it is hard to understand or else people are just having knee-jerk reactions and not actually reading what is in the article.

[WhollyHeretic]

9. I know he has to come back

but the judge let him leave without posting money because he was a regular church goer. It's not that hard to understand. For most...

[Der Blaue Engel]

11. So it doesn't bother you that an atheist or a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Jew

who showed up in this court on the same charge might be treated differently.

"Your Honor, my client is an honorable Humanist." And this judge reacts how, in your opinion? What "satisfied" Burlew? Are all defendants released on merely an appearance bond?

[Zensea]

12. Sure it is of concern but "might be" is the key point

I am a buddhist actually so of course it concerns me.
All I'm responding to is that there really isn't enough information in the article to know all the reasons why the judge did what he did and that he would have done it any differently if the lawyer had argued that his client had good character because he was a devout Muslim or Buddhist or Jew.
There is enough information to know that the judge thought that if the guy was a regular church-goer it spoke to his character or at least whether he could be trusted on an appearance bond.
Again, though, it doesn't indicate that the judge had some special preference for Christians.

I have no way of knowing how the judge would react if the statement had been "my client is an honorable humanist," so I am not going to conjecture.

That's my point,see? I don't know, and no one else knows either. People are just showing their preconceptions about the issue -- at least based on what is in the initial article which doesn't really go into nearly enough detail to base anything like an informed judgement on.

[Der Blaue Engel]

13. Discussion is all about conjecture

I don't think anyone is taking any wild leaps here.

This is the part that seems to stand out to me: "...his attorney described him as a church-goer, hoping the judge would set a low bond." The judge set a low bond after "proving" he was a church-goer. Not a huge leap.

[cain_7777]

14. Bullshit, it has everything to do with Church and State

If the lawyer had said this man is an intelligent rational thinker who knows true morals and ethics from classic greek literature before it was perverted by religion I heavily doubt the judge would then ask him to recite some and allow him free on less bond. If he wasn't a christian he would have been denied bond and kept in jail until his next court date. What if he was Muslim and could recite from the Koran? Do you think he would have the same treatment?

[Zensea]

15. Already answered this in post 12

n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

24. I think the beef is about whether being a regular church-goer

ought to have any significance on the man's bail.

Although I'm one myself, I'd have to agree that it shouldn't really be pertinent.

[Zhade]

28. It's the cultural bias of "Christian = good", which I know we agree is not automatically true.

As you say, it's not pertinent, as bad people are often Christians just like good people are often atheists.

It should not be assumed that being either is indicative of one's character. The judge is wrong here.

[JerseygirlCT]

31. I agree. nt

[LiberalVoice]

4. How the fuck is this legal?

Absolutely fucking ridiculous. :mad: My brother goes to jail because hes a 20 year old smoking a blunt and this POS gets off cuz he can quote the bible? I don't have the words to express how angry I am right now. Religion is a plague on the human mind.

[Zhade]

29. It's literally insane.

Incarcerating people for smoking a beneficial plant, and releasing people for quoting Bronze Age myths - insane is all I can call it.

:hug: As a medical marijuana patient, you have my sincere condolences and shared fury.

[unpossibles]

10. the judge should have asked him to recite the 10 commandments

then told him he broke one.

[Dorian Gray]

16. That's so wrong....

Can't the judge be punished for that type of behavior?

[Meshuga]

17. He should be fired/removed n/t

[cosmik debris]

18. The judge had no right to ask

At least that is my interpretation of Article VI section 3.

"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

I say that bail is a public trust. But then I am reaching somewhat.

At any rate, this could come back to bite the judge if everyone who comes before him recites the 23rd Psalm when requesting bail. Has a precedent been set? What if the next defendant has a different ethnicity? Gender? Or socio-economic status? Perhaps this judge dug himself a hole he can't dig his way out of.

[kiahzero]

21. He probably hasn't.

I suspect the judge thought that the attorney was piling it on thick, and was trying to knock the defendant down a few pegs. Something along the lines of, "Oh, you're a devout church-goer, eh? Prove it." If the attorney hadn't brought it up, it seems extremely unlikely that he would have randomly asked.

Keep in mind that the presumption in pretrial release is supposed to be for release, not detention. Also keep in mind the purpose of the pretrial hearing is to determine the flight risk and dangerousness to the community of the accused. For a relatively minor economic crime, neither are particularly high.

[JerseygirlCT]

25. I don't mind the judge attempting to call someone on what he

thought was a bluff.

The problem starts earlier, with the idea that being churchgoing should someone impact his bail.

[Evoman]

19. Christians are more moral and ethical than us.

It makes sense to me. IF the judge had not done this, then it would have been christian persecution, obviously. Why do you people hate your christian nation? :freak:

[cosmik debris]

20. Damn! I forgot!

The "free exercise" clause in our Constitution includes a "get-out-of-jail-free" card for Christians.

[struggle4progress]

23. Conventional pietistic displays ... urp!

[Zhade]

26. The bible will set you back $99.95 with the gilded edges.

The price it will set you back intellectually based on adoption of a literal interpretation? Incalculable.

[Zhade]

27. That is a violation of the equal protection clause, as well as the first amendment.

The law cannot provide relief based on one's religion.

Does anyone think this defendant could have quoted from the Koran and gotten such relief? I don't.

Different rules for different beliefs is an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause.

This judge should be suspended pending review, to check for additional preferential treatment given to the religious.

[kiahzero]

30. The presumption is in favor of pretrial release.

So yes, I think that a defendant could pretty much say anything that would lead a judge to conclude that someone isn't a flight risk and isn't a threat to the community and get the same result.