Life Prison Sentences v/s Capital Punishment

[I-10east]

So you're on a jury and the defendant is clearly guilty.  No question.  On that jury is 1 person who is adamantly against CP.  How do you try and persuade them?

Many times the evidence is clear cut in violent crimes (DNA, video, money trail etc). So not everything is this 'oh no, we might be executing an innocent person' crap that many are captivated with.

[The_Choose_1]

So you're on a jury and the defendant is clearly guilty.  No question.  On that jury is 1 person who is adamantly against CP.  How do you try and persuade them?

Many times the evidence is clear cut in violent crimes (DNA, video, money trail etc). So not everything is this 'oh no, we might be executing an innocent person' crap that many are captivated with.

Have you been a Juror i-10 east? I have been on a Rape case & a drug case. And with all the evidence shown WE the jurors found the people charged with the crime "NOT GUILTY". I wasn't the juror foreperson I was just a plain old juror. So see even if the prosecution believes what evidence they showed us We the Jurors found reasonable Doubt. Case Closed.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

So you're on a jury and the defendant is clearly guilty.  No question.  On that jury is 1 person who is adamantly against CP.  How do you try and persuade them?

Many times the evidence is clear cut in violent crimes (DNA, video, money trail etc). So not everything is this 'oh no, we might be executing an innocent person' crap that many are captivated with.

I don't think that really matters.  Like AKIRA said above, the decision a juror has to make to put someone to death might go completely against their core system of belief.

I guess that the point that I'm getting to is that the system we have is inherently flawed, not that anyone has ever said it to be perfect, but leaving a punishment up to and including the death penalty to people who may be against it needs some tweaking, IMO.

I've never served or witnessed a capital trial, so I'll need some help from an actual professional or someone who knows.  Can you ask a juror if they would have a personal/religious objection to sentencing someone to death?  Because in this case, and I'm sure many like it, just one juror makes a helluva lot of difference.

If it comes down to one or two dissenting jurors, should/do they have to provide their reasoning to the judge?

[The_Choose_1]

So you're on a jury and the defendant is clearly guilty.  No question.  On that jury is 1 person who is adamantly against CP.  How do you try and persuade them?

Many times the evidence is clear cut in violent crimes (DNA, video, money trail etc). So not everything is this 'oh no, we might be executing an innocent person' crap that many are captivated with.

I don't think that really matters.  Like AKIRA said above, the decision a juror has to make to put someone to death might go completely against their core system of belief.

I guess that the point that I'm getting to is that the system we have is inherently flawed, not that anyone has ever said it to be perfect, but leaving a punishment up to and including the death penalty to people who may be against it needs some tweaking, IMO.

I've never served or witnessed a capital trial, so I'll need some help from an actual professional or someone who knows.  Can you ask a juror if they would have a personal/religious objection to sentencing someone to death?  Because in this case, and I'm sure many like it, just one juror makes a helluva lot of difference.

If it comes down to one or two dissenting jurors, should/do they have to provide their reasoning to the judge?

I can tell you what happen to me as a juror on a Rape Case? After WE the jury found the accused Not Guilty the Judge in the case said he could ask us into his chamber and ASK WHY I CAME up to my Not Guilty verdict? He was trying to scare us. But none of us were scared. It just Pissed me off! We the Jurors said Not Guilty case closed. When I was called the three time as a juror in such a short period of time. I got out of having to serve as a Juror again when I told the sitting Judge that I NO LONGER BELIEVED IN THE SYSTEM OF A FAIR TRIAL! And I have never been called as a Juror since. Thank God!

[Adam White]

In the case of the Boston bombings, some of the victims and victims' families did not want him to get the death penalty because they did not want him to be considered a martyr.

About 12 years ago, a friend's father was shot and killed by his girlfriend's jealous ex. He fled and was eventually caught (years later). My friend was devastated by his father's death (as you would expect him to be) but still didn't want the killer to get the death penalty. I think he did, though.

Regarding specific cases when capital punishment would even be considered an option, what would your opinions be if the judicial process were allowed to play out - as is, and then move into a separate sentencing trial that would would decided by the victims / immediate surviving family?

Understandably, some would probably not want to bear that decision or even be a part of it, but I believe that many would.  I wonder if the ability to have a say in the punishment of the offender would offer some actual closure or if would be unfair to ask them to have to make that decision?

I'm totally against the death penalty. I don't think the justice system should be used to exact revenge. We're meant to be better than the 'eye for an eye' lot and the victim's family shouldn't have any say in the matter. I'm not saying they aren't victims in a sense - but the punishment shouldn't be about them getting closure. It should (in theory) be an adequate punishment to fit the crime that was committed.

But to echo something Chris said earlier - I don't see how killing another person accomplishes anything. If killing is wrong (and I think it is), it's not justified as a response to a crime. It's just the commission of another crime.

[I-10east]

Have you been a Juror i-10 east? I have been on a Rape case & a drug case. And with all the evidence shown WE the jurors found the people charged with the crime "NOT GUILTY". I wasn't the juror foreperson I was just a plain old juror. So see even if the prosecution believes what evidence they showed us We the Jurors found reasonable Doubt. Case Closed.

You totally missed what I said. Of course everything goes though an extensive process in a courtroom. Like I said MANY cases are clear cut with the perps on video. I'm sorry but with DNA, video, money trails, social media (with tech nowadays)etc, reasonable doubt is very limited. Now if it was based solely on witness testimony, I would get what you're saying. Lets not act like there aren't many clear cut cases...

[The_Choose_1]

Have you been a Juror i-10 east? I have been on a Rape case & a drug case. And with all the evidence shown WE the jurors found the people charged with the crime "NOT GUILTY". I wasn't the juror foreperson I was just a plain old juror. So see even if the prosecution believes what evidence they showed us We the Jurors found reasonable Doubt. Case Closed.

You totally missed what I said. Of course everything goes though an extensive process in a courtroom. Like I said MANY cases are clear cut with the perps on video. I'm sorry but with DNA, video, money trails, social media (with tech nowadays)etc, reasonable doubt is very limited. Now if it was based solely on witness testimony, I would get what you're saying. Lets not act like there aren't many clear cut cases...

I didn't miss your point but to be honest your point is lost on fantasy island. Tell a Defense Attorney that Reasonable doubt is very limited because of Modern technology. And he/she will laugh in your face.

[I-10east]

^^^You must be in fantasy land if you haven't heard of incriminating evidence. You are gonna weasel your way out of a conviction while being caught on video and creating a money trail? Yeah, good luck with that case buddy....

[Gunnar]

I am split on the issue. When I am thinking about this in general (i.e. not tied to any particular case), I am against the death penalty but I must admit there are cases where in that particular case I would not be against it, but that is my emotional side speaking.

My issue with the death penalty are:
- to me it seems to be more about revenge than anything else. While this is understandable on a personal level, especially for those affected by the crime (and I would be no different), the justice system should be as free from vengeful emotion as possible.
- the death penalty is final, so in case an innocent person has been executed there is no way to make this right - and there have been (far too) many cases where innocent people were sentenced to death based on sloppy investigating, ulterior motives, giving wrong testimony, hiding / manipulation of evidence, people not doing their job properly...
- In many cases a death sentence is actually a double-punishment since convicts can sit in jail for 10+ years before the sentence is carried out.

So, from the above, if society feels that the death penalty should be allowed, then
- it needs to be ensured that all defendants have a proper legal representation
- there need to be certain requirements on proof (i.e. the smoking gun)
- it should be swift (no combination of a long prison term and an execution)
- it should also mean that anyone contributing to an innocent person being executed (i.e. because they were hiding, manipulating or ignoring exonerating evidence) should automatically receive the same sentence

[vicupstate]

Can you ask a juror if they would have a personal/religious objection to sentencing someone to death?  Because in this case, and I'm sure many like it, just one juror makes a helluva lot of difference.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that it is not only allowed, but is standard procedure. A prosecutor seeking a Death Penalty conviction will usually not agree to seat someone that is opposed to the Death Penalty.  Also, they would have already investigated the potential juror enough to have an idea of their response beforehand.

Of course, the juror can SAY one thing in the courtroom, and DO something different in the jury room.

I don't have a problem with the Death Penalty as far as it being the penalty For me to vote for it as a juror, I would have to have no doubt of their guilt, and it would have to be significantly heinous.

One thing to consider is that just because someone is in prison, doesn't mean they can't still kill someone.     

[The_Choose_1]

^^^You must be in fantasy land if you haven't heard of incriminating evidence. You are gonna weasel your way out of a conviction while being caught on video and creating a money trail? Yeah, good luck with that case buddy....

Jesus Christ I have heard of incriminating evidence who in the Hell hasn't. But here is the problem a lot of this so called Prefect Evidence is thrown out of court all the time. Say hello to Tattoo for me. 

[The_Choose_1]

Can you ask a juror if they would have a personal/religious objection to sentencing someone to death?  Because in this case, and I'm sure many like it, just one juror makes a helluva lot of difference.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that it is not only allowed, but is standard procedure. A prosecutor seeking a Death Penalty conviction will usually not agree to seat someone that is opposed to the Death Penalty.  Also, they would have already investigated the potential juror enough to have an idea of their response beforehand.

Of course, the juror can SAY one thing in the courtroom, and DO something different in the jury room.

I don't have a problem with the Death Penalty as far as it being the penalty For me to vote for it as a juror, I would have to have no doubt of their guilt, and it would have to be significantly heinous.

One thing to consider is that just because someone is in prison, doesn't mean they can't still kill someone.   

WOW! So since this man in Colorado didn't get "Capital Punishment" it's OK for him to be Murdered in Prison?

[The_Choose_1]

I am split on the issue. When I am thinking about this in general (i.e. not tied to any particular case), I am against the death penalty but I must admit there are cases where in that particular case I would not be against it, but that is my emotional side speaking.

My issue with the death penalty are:
- to me it seems to be more about revenge than anything else. While this is understandable on a personal level, especially for those affected by the crime (and I would be no different), the justice system should be as free from vengeful emotion as possible.
- the death penalty is final, so in case an innocent person has been executed there is no way to make this right - and there have been (far too) many cases where innocent people were sentenced to death based on sloppy investigating, ulterior motives, giving wrong testimony, hiding / manipulation of evidence, people not doing their job properly...
- In many cases a death sentence is actually a double-punishment since convicts can sit in jail for 10+ years before the sentence is carried out.

So, from the above, if society feels that the death penalty should be allowed, then
- it needs to be ensured that all defendants have a proper legal representation
- there need to be certain requirements on proof (i.e. the smoking gun)
- it should be swift (no combination of a long prison term and an execution)
- it should also mean that anyone contributing to an innocent person being executed (i.e. because they were hiding, manipulating or ignoring exonerating evidence) should automatically receive the same sentence

Good points ^^^^^^ but it will never happen here in America.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

WOW! So since this man in Colorado didn't get "Capital Punishment" it's OK for him to be Murdered in Prison?

Your comprehension could use a little tweaking.

I'm going to type this slowly to help you understand it a bit clearer:

Putting a murderer in prison won't prevent him/her from murdering again whereas executing said murderer would.

[vicupstate]

Can you ask a juror if they would have a personal/religious objection to sentencing someone to death?  Because in this case, and I'm sure many like it, just one juror makes a helluva lot of difference.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that it is not only allowed, but is standard procedure. A prosecutor seeking a Death Penalty conviction will usually not agree to seat someone that is opposed to the Death Penalty.  Also, they would have already investigated the potential juror enough to have an idea of their response beforehand.

Of course, the juror can SAY one thing in the courtroom, and DO something different in the jury room.

I don't have a problem with the Death Penalty as far as it being the penalty For me to vote for it as a juror, I would have to have no doubt of their guilt, and it would have to be significantly heinous.

One thing to consider is that just because someone is in prison, doesn't mean they can't still kill someone.   

WOW! So since this man in Colorado didn't get "Capital Punishment" it's OK for him to be Murdered in Prison?

No, you completely misunderstood.

My point was that by putting someone in prison, they can still kill someone. They could kill a Corrections Officer, a fellow inmate or order a hit from the inside for someone on the outside.  Many that argue against the Death Penalty use the argument that society is 'safe' because the killer is in prison. But that is not completely true.  Obviously if someone was executed, they are NOT going to kill anyone else, ever. That was my point.