committing adultery and is about to be stoned to death.
Jesus tells her would-be executioners that only a man
who is without sin should throw a stone. After freeing the
woman, Jesus forgives her. The purpose of telling the
story is to illustrate that no one is without sin, and thus,
no one should condemn another person to death.
Because Jesus stopped an execution in favor of mercy
and forgiveness, jurors should do the same. Another bib-
lical story involves the crucifixion of Jesus. The attorney
tells the jury that Jesus asked God to “forgive them for
they know not what they do.” Thus, jurors are told that
they should forgive the defendant, just as Jesus forgave
the people who were killing him.
Finally, defense attorneys have presented evidence
of the defendant’s religiosity in an attempt to evoke
jurors’ mercy. For example, a lawyer may tell the jury
that the defendant deserves mercy because he is a
Christian or has converted to Christianity while in
prison. The defendant may present evidence or testi-
mony that establishes that he has formed a prison
Bible study, has written Christian books, or spends
much time in prayer.
Courts have issued a variety of opinions concerning
whether it is permissible for attorneys to use religion
during trial. Generally, defendant can present evidence
of their character that would convince a jury that they
do not deserve the death penalty. Thus, evidence of a
religious conversion would typically be allowed.
There has been much more controversy over reli-
gious appeals by prosecutors and defense attorneys.
Some courts have forbidden all religious appeals, while
others have provided guidelines for determining what
kinds of appeals are allowable—for instance, excluding
religious appeals that are excessive, are not related to
the character of the defendant, prejudice jurors, or pre-
vent a trial. Still other courts have allowed all appeals.
Such courts have determined that appeals are appropri-
ate because they are merely part of lawyers’ theatrics.
Courts have forbidden religious appeals for a variety
of reasons. Some courts have determined that such
appeals violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition on
cruel and unusual punishment. In a death-penalty-
sentencing trial, a defendant is allowed to provide evi-
dence of mitigating factors (i.e., evidence that the defen-
dant does not deserve the death penalty). Biblical appeals
allegedly do not allow jurors to consider mitigating fac-
tors; for instance, the “eye for an eye” command instructs
jurors to give murderers the death penalty and does not
provide jurors with any reasons to deviate from this bib-
lical principle. Courts have rejected defense appeals aswell. Some courts have found defense appeals to be
improper because they suggest that jurors deviate from
the state law. For instance, a lawyer tells jurors that God
forbids them from giving a death sentence, while state
law allows a jury to sentence a man to death.
Only a few studies have investigated the effects of
religious appeals and testimony. In general, research
indicates that appeals used by the prosecution are
ineffective. That is, biblical quotes do not encourage
jurors to give death sentences. Defense appeals used
in one study were influential; however, they actually
had the opposite effect from what was intended.
Specifically, a defense attorney’s biblical appeal led
jurors to be more likely to give a death sentence. On
the other hand, the study found that evidence of a reli-
gious conversion led jurors to be less punitive.
Evidence that the defendant has always been a
Christian has either backfired or had no effect.Use of Religion in Deliberation
In several recent capital trials, jurors have used a Bible
during deliberation. Jurors in at least one trial admitted
looking up passages such as the “eye for an eye” pas-
sage before sentencing the defendant to death. While
judges have generally declared the practice impermissi-
ble, it is difficult to completely remove religion from the
deliberation room. Even without a Bible, jurors can cite
scripture from memory or privately rely on their reli-
gious convictions during deliberations. The effects of
religion in deliberation have not been studied.Use of Religion by Judges
Judges can also rely on religion in their decisions.
They may be persuaded by their religious beliefs
when deciding whether to uphold or reverse a death
sentence. They may also allow religious factors to
determine whether a lawyer has misused religion in a
specific trial. Very little research has been conducted
on this issue, although one study found that evangeli-
cal judges were more likely to uphold a death sen-
tence than their counterparts. This finding opposes
another study that found that evangelical individuals
were less punitive.
In sum, religion can affect a death penalty trial in
various ways, though these effects remain largely
unstudied.
Monica K. MillerReligion and the Death Penalty——— 683R-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 683