Death Penalty Moratorium?

[Texan]

Re: Another problem

If I'm not mistaken, potential jurors in cases where the death penalty might be a possibility can be disqualified if they admit that they would NEVER sentence someone to death, regardless of the accused crime or guilt. In other words, the jury is made up of people in favor of the death penalty. Would we be willing to agree that people who are in favor of the death penalty tend to be tougher on crime? How the hell is THAT fair?

I understand that it seems to be a waste of time to have a jury consider sentencing a convicted felon to death when there are jurors who have already stated they would never agree to condem someone to death. But that just further points out the absurdity of capital punishment in a democracy. You have the right to a trial before a jury of your peers...provided those peers think executing the guilty is a good idea. Those who are opposed can go sit on an insurance fraud case.

good point, but that isn't exactly the way it's presented in court. You don't have to be "for the death penalt" to be on the jury, you just have to be willing to "uphold the law", as the law is currently written.

When it comes to a "jury of your own peers", the broadest definition of "peers" is used. How is it possible for a wealthy middle-aged man to get a jury of his peers, when they can so easily get out of jury duty? How is it possible for a person under 18 to get a jury of peers? Come to think of it, we usually say that a jury isn't a "good" jury unless it has a broad mix of gender, race and ages on the jury. Doesn't this "guarantee" that the defendant won't have a jury of his peers?

 

[lavender]

 

[Texan]

Texan-

I say this with all due respect. But your definition of peers is quite narrow, limited & elitist. It assumes that a 20 year old college sophomore cannot be considered a peer for a 45 year old businessman simply because of age. Or that a union worker can't be a peer for a neurosurgeon because they are in a different economic bracket. A jury of our peers simply means a jury of laypersons.

lavender, ... with equal respect.

cristo questioned how it could be called a jury of "peers" if there were not people on the jury who were against the death penalty. I was pointing out that it is impossible to define peers by whatever method gives a defendant the best advantage.

I was going to answer this briefly, but let me tell a short story....

I was summoned for jury duty a few years ago. The case was a statutory rape case involving a 17 year old boy and a 14 year old girl. During voir dire, the lawyers gave some basic information about the case. They said that the sex was consentual, and that the girl had told the boy she was 17. Sex happened only once. They also told us that no complaint had been filed until the girl told her father several weeks later, when the boy dumped the girl. They asked if any of us had a problem sentencing the defendant to "30 years to life" in prison if the prosecution could make it's case and prove that the sex had actually happened.

I told the judge and lawyers that I most definately had a problem ending a kid's life under these circumstances. I told them that I had boys who were, at that time, 17 and 14, and I saw what girls of 14 could look like. I was dismissed from the jury by the prosecution. Other prospective jury members were dismissed by the defense lawyers. What they ended up with were a group of jurors and alternates who held virtually no opinions on any subject, but they were the best society had to offer.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

You guys are so far above me,
and I enjoy it all,

Tell me. if I get caught cutting a little pot off in the Fall,

do I get judged by the communities values,

or by a jury of fellow pot smokers?

(who, I submit, may be a lrger part of the community than we are willing to admit?)

Also, if I am OJ?

Where, outside of death row, do I find my peers?

Or are my peers determined by skin color, or the amount of income they can produce in my defense?

 

[lavender]

 

[Andra_Jenny]

I am dumber than lavy,
so I will say it is just wrong to take life,

everytime you kill,

you kill a little piece of you....

 

[Texan]

no argument

lavender, I have no argument with anything you said, and I appreciate the expanation.

I do have one question. I thought in Texas a murder suspect was indicted on either "first degree" murder charges, or "capital" murder charges. If this is the case, the judgement of guilty in a capital murder case automatically carries the death penalty. There is no other option. Therefore, whether a jury member has it within his ability to sentence a defendant to death would be a major factor in whether or not that juror could rule for guilt if the prosecution proved its case.

My question is, is this right, or do I misunderstand the legal system in Texas?

 

[lavender]

 

[Weird Harold]

Weird Harold, you make a logical fallacy yourself when answering cristo's post. You assume that the alternative to the death penalty is finding no guilt. That is simply wrong. There are 2 phases to a death penalty trial.
...
It is also not like you to throw shit with your "moral fanatics" garb. Am I a "moral fanatic" because I think the death penalty is discriminatorily practiced and is an illegitimate way for society to deal with any criminal?
...
The person who disagrees with the death penalty has not made up their mind prior to the trial about the guilt or innocence of the individual.

My assumption wasn't that there is no alternative but, as several people interviewed on various news reports have explicitly stated, that someone who opposes the death penalty vociferously feels, "If the death penalty is sought, I would have to vote 'not guilty' regardless of the facts."

If that is your view of the death penalty, (which is apparently not the case,) then yes, you would be a "moral fanatic." I do NOT consider pointing out that some people consider their morality better than anyone else's to the point where they would activel work to subvert the laws of the land as "throwing shit" -- I'm just pointing out the pile of shit that exists in place of some people's minds.

Many death penalty opponents have made up their minds that any death penalty case should be obstructed in any way possible. Guilt or innocence is irrelevant to them -- those are the "moral fanatics."

I can appreciate your stance that determining guilt or innocence is something separate from agreeing to impose the death penalty. Unfortunately, you are one of the very rare death penlaty opponents I have encountered who make the distinction.

I support the death penalty for exactly the same reason I support putting "mad dogs" to sleep. Our justice system needs to be reformed to eliminate the discriminatory way the death penalty is sought by prosecutors, and applied by juries. That doesn't mean the death penalty is wrong, only that our system is flawed and needs to be repaired.

You mentioned that opposition to the death penalty is grounds for disqualification "for cause." I believe that is the case because the legal system feels, as I do, that it is indicative of a prejudice that inhibits the ability to render an impartial judgement on the merits of the case.

I have participated in many discussions about the death penalty over the years. I've found that those who oppose the death penalty, on average, tend to favor the view that it's better to send a dozen serial killers back to the streets than to execute one innocent person.

In answer to the obivous question in your mind, YES, I do believe that it is better that an innocent man die if it means that a dozen guilty animals die too.

I'm realist enough to know that no system is ever going to be perfect and mistakes are going to be made. I believe that making those mistakes in the direction that protects the most people is the best course.

In answer to the next point, Life Sentences aren't always for life.

Charles Manson has a good many followers on the loose. Even if some bleeding heart parole board doesn't decide he is no further threat to society and release him; there is the possiblity of his followers deciding to break him out, or kidnap someone important enough to force his release.

Charles Manson is just one example of a prisoner serving life who should be removed permanently because there is absolutely no doubt of his guilt and lack of remorse -- one who was in fact sentenced to die but because of the politics of the time was commuted to life in prison with the possiblity of parole.

The rules and procedures for applying the death penalty should be reformed.

It is applied unfairly, because there are many lawyers who feel, as you do, that the death penalty should never be an option and won't seek the death penalty unless the law gives them no choice; like minded Judges who won't impose the death penalty; Governors who commute every death penalty that crosses their desks; and those of the opposite persuasion who seek and apply the death penalty whenever it is possible.

Mandatory sentencing laws would alleviate some of the bias, but not all. With mandatory sentencing, the indictment will just be worded to avoid the mandatorily sentenced crime in favor of one with a lesser penalty, or vice versa.

Automatic judicial reviews by two appelate courts would alleviate many of the erroneous senetences, especially with very strict guidlines for applying the death penalty -- no person should be sentenced to die without direct physical evidence to convict them. There are capital cases where there is no doubt about the identity of the killer, and there are a good many people on death row convicted by circumstantial and/or indirect evidence. Those people should NOT be on death row unless they've confessed to the crime as well.

Case in point, the embassy bomber convicted recently -- there is apparently ample evidence that he is guilty, yet there is no "smoking gun" to justify a death penalty.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Did I mention that to take life outside of combat is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!

Do not take life needlessly!

McVey still had some things to say...

There is still a celll

that wishes to see you in hell!

 

[Laurel]

Did I mention that to take life outside of combat is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!

Do not take life needlessly!

McVey still had some things to say...

That's the fucked part...sure he didn't show remorse then, but what about in 20 years? What if eventually he had a change of heart (it happens!) and decided to let loose with all the names of co-conspirators and plans and organizations involved? Now we'll probably never know what happened, and those people will never get the apology from McVeigh that some of them desired.

You can always kill someone later. You can't unkill someone you've killed already.

And the government has no right to take innocent life. If we accept the fact that innocents must die in the chair in our pursuit of "justice", then we are no better than McVeigh and his "collateral damage" excuse.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

He took last rites.

sorry. I do really love you though!

 

[Andra_Jenny]

I am really drunk and have may have missed the point,]
I have said all along that there is more,
sorry Laurel, do not want to be a foil, just can't get it out of my mind, like so many things, I stll do not understand why there were four dead in Ohio, and I lived through it...

and I argued all along to keep him alive...

Conservative as i may be

I don't beleive in Killing, no matter what!

 

[Laurel]

I agree with you, A_J...

...doesn't that freak you out?

 

[Andra_Jenny]

No, because you have been the coolest part of this board from the very beginning and I love you and what you have done and for what it is worth,

I would go to war for you...


PARIS

 

[Problem Child]

You should drink more often AJ.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Medical or philosiphical (sp on both) advice

 

[Problem Child]

uh...behavioral.

 

[lavender]

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Okay, I wiil try...

The makers of Canadian Mist,

send me a Christmas card every, fucking year, and a birthday card...

I wonder if Todd is a stockholder...

 

[Laurel]

No, because you have been the coolest part of this board from the very beginning and I love you and what you have done and for what it is worth,

I would go to war for you...

That'd made me blush, but know for a fact that I would never ask that of you. Just hang around and post your wild cool freaky shit, that's all I ask...

 

[Andra_Jenny]

COOL!