GuercinoAdultress1621DulwichI’ve already blogged about politicians — either convicted of crimes or being tried for crimes — using religious appeals in order to make themselves seem like great guys who didn’t really do anything wrong. It’s not to its credit that a religion can be used this way … but as I’ve noted, it does work, because religious people really do fall for it, all the time.

The latest example of this, though, is one that I assume religious people will have a harder time swallowing. Actually, it would be pretty laughable, if not for the nature of the case in question, which is the worst crime in recent Connecticut history, the Cheshire home invasion massacre. The second of two suspects will soon go on trial, so his attorneys have dutifully gone on the offensive, as reported by the venerable Hartford Courant (WebCite cached article):

Joshua Komisarjevsky, accused of the 2007 Cheshire home invasion killings, wants to respond to comments made by the lone survivor of the attack, Dr. William Petit Jr., and members of his family.

In a motion filed Friday and unsealed Monday morning, Komisarjevsky says that comments made by Petit and other family members calling him “evil” and an “animal” are part of “an ongoing public relations campaign” that could affect whether Komisarjevsky receives a fair trial. …

In the latest motion, the defense states that the “families’ characterization” of Komisarjevsky as an animal and evil murderer was inaccurate. And Komisarjevsky — in his own statement — wants the chance to respond. …

Komisarjevsky “is, among many things, a damaged human being, who, like any of us, deserves not be judged solely by the worst of his acts — no matter how difficult or abhorrent those acts may be reported or perceived.”

The motion continues: “It speaks to the value of Josh’s life and to his fundamental humanity that he continues to enjoy the love and support of his family and many in the community. These people know Josh not only for what occurred and is alleged to have occurred on July 23, 2007 but also for his positive, redeeming attributes, which exist despite mental disorder and the harm done by years of trauma and abuse.”

So you see, if Komisarjevsky’s attorneys are to be believed, their client is a righteous, upstanding choir-boy who merely happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. So far, no religion … but having attempted to make their butcher/rapist client appear saintly, the defense attorneys continue:

Komisarjevsky’s attorneys quote Mother Teresa and Mahatma Gandhi in the motion, noting that Petit and his family members also have quoted these “apostles of peace, non-violence and love, as well as vocal death penalty opponents.” Petit supports the death penalty.

And then — if you can believe it — the crowning touch:

At one point, the motion also quotes the Bible, citing the well-known passage, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone.”

That’s right folks. According to these defense attorneys and the Bible (i.e. in the story of the woman taken in adultery) we are not allowed to judge Komisarjevsky!

I understand that this is a case of defense attorneys — who live in a strange alternate universe of their own in which crimes never occur and no one should ever be convicted of anything — just trying to defend the indefensible. But as I said before, it’s not to the credit of Christianity that it can be used to rationalize away letting criminals off the hook.

Note too the inconsistency of the attorneys’ argument here. Up to this point, they’d been saying only that they don’t want the death penalty imposed on their client. But that isn’t the message of the Pericope Adulterae; it is, rather, that no sentence can ever be imposed on anyone, for any reason, because there is no “perfect,” sinless human being to convict him/her. In their grandiose effort to rationalize saving their client’s life, these attorneys actually argued that Komisarjevsky and every other person now in prison, must be set free! They are, in short, arguing a completely different point from what they originally set out to support.

Frankly I’m amazed these attorneys didn’t trot out Matthew 7:1 and demand, on that basis, that the judge should resign from his job immediately. They really don’t appear to have much shame, do they?

I will end this post by appealing to you to do make a donation to the Petit Family Foundation in memory of those killed in this crime and as a way of saying to Komisarjevsky and his attorneys that you do not support their claims that “Josh” has any virtue and that no one is permitted to judge anyone at all, ever.

One last question for you Christians out there: If you refuse to accept this crap from Komisarjevsky and his attorneys — and I assume you don’t — why on earth would you be stupid enough to accept it from people like John Rowland, or Ted Haggard, or George Rekers, or any of the rest of the hypocritical, reprehensible creatures that you welcome back with open arms? How are you not being hypocritical, yourselves, for having this double standard?

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “An Absurd Use Of Religion To Defend The Indefensible”
  1. […] I’ve already blogged about appeals to religion that lawyers for Joshua Komisarjevsky — recently convicted for his role in the Cheshire home invasion massacre — used in a (futile) effort to excuse their client. Now that they’re dealing with a death-penalty hearing, they’re pulling out all the stops. The Torrington (CT) Register-Citizen reports that they put his mother on the stand to spew their own ridiculous variation on the old “the Devil made me do it” protest (WebCite cached article): […]

  2. Katie says:

    You know nothing about God or the bible. I feel sorry for people like you going around shaming yourself by saying you are better than Joshua, Yes he deserves to pay the consequence for his sin. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. SO I ask you who wrote this article have you sinned? I know the answer yes you have….Therefore you deserve to be right next to Joshua dying with him, because God your judge views your sins the way he does Joshuas, You are an animal just the same you just don't see it because you are blind selfish human drowning in your pride and rejecting the love of Jesus Christ. I feel sad for you. I hope you find Christ for you and the sake of your family…..

    • PsiCop says:

      Actually I know plenty about God and about the Bible. For example, I can read the New Testament in its original Greek. Can you? You may think you “know” I have sinned, and you may also likewise “know” that the judge and jury in Komisarjevsky’s case have also “sinned,” but unfortunately for you and the massacerer, that does not mean they’re not allowed to “judge” him guilty and sentence him to death. It just doesn’t.

      As for what I’m guilty of … if you can demonstrate that I ever killed three people in a home invasion, then most certainly I should “die with him.” Please offer your compelling, objective evidence that I’m guilty of such a crime. Go ahead. I dare you to show how I’ve done something commensurate with that crime.

      And as for my “rejecting” Jesus Christ … it’s not even certain any such being ever existed. And even if he did at some point in the past, his “love” is certainly not evident anywhere, now. Thus, there is nothing for me to “reject” and you cannot logically say I’ve “rejected” it.

      Lastly, your being “sad” for me is a waste of emotion on your part. If you think it somehow affects me, rest assured … it doesn’t. If it makes you feel better to waste your time and effort being “sad” for me, then be my guest; but don’t expect me to be impressed by it.

  3. […] for example, attempted to cast their client as a saint rather than a sadistic rapist and murderer, and used quotations from the gospels to suggest that no one on the planet has any right to judge him for what he did. (Fortunately, neither the judge in that case nor the jury […]

  4. […] I’d assumed I’d never mention on this blog. But it turns out I was wrong about that (as was the case with a few other major stories I hadn’t thought could end up having a religious angle). But […]

  5. […] to grandstand. It’s also not the first time one of the Cheshire home-invasion defendants has used religion to defend the indefensible. (Defense attorneys tend to be absurdly shameless — even in cases, such as this one, where […]