|
|
Post by maryny on Sept 14, 2005 22:34:38 GMT -5
I'd like an explaination of how an anti would be fair on a death penalty jury? And anti would never vote for death, not under any circumstances, a pro on the other hand can be impartial and look at the entire case and could vote either way. So where is the logic in what you say?
|
|
|
|
Post by paleone on Sept 14, 2005 22:50:20 GMT -5
I'd like an explaination of how an anti would be fair on a death penalty jury? And anti would never vote for death, not under any circumstances, a pro on the other hand can be impartial and look at the entire case and could vote either way. So where is the logic in what you say? HA! Really? well let's see, you are pro right? and you think they are all evil doers and monsters and wish their death...you fascinate yourself with their murders and you love it...so...hhmmm....do i think pros should be on a jury that has a person's LIFE in their HANDS? ha, don't think so chickie |
|
|
|
Post by maryny on Sept 14, 2005 22:52:53 GMT -5
Oh I will be the first to admit that I would need to be disqualified. I could in not be impartial. This doesn't mean the majority of pros couldn't be.
|
|
|
|
Post by wyldflowers on Sept 14, 2005 23:17:08 GMT -5
In a system that is fair the jury will be picked at random from the offical list of voters, the only reasons to bar people would be that they know the defendant or the victims, or that they said they could not give a balanced decision. It is no more right to have people who would always vote for a death sentence regardless than people with the opposite view. Given that Pros claim to be in a majority of two to one, and majority decisions being allowed, what do they have to fear from juries selected from random? Best wishes, Judy Perhaps in a perfect world  |
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Aug 30, 2006 8:41:55 GMT -5
bump for LB  |
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Aug 30, 2006 9:48:57 GMT -5
In a system that is fair the jury will be picked at random from the offical list of voters, the only reasons to bar people would be that they know the defendant or the victims, or that they said they could not give a balanced decision. It is no more right to have people who would always vote for a death sentence regardless than people with the opposite view. Given that Pros claim to be in a majority of two to one, and majority decisions being allowed, what do they have to fear from juries selected from random? It's not quite that way... that the people selected for a jury have to be those that would always vote for a death penalty. They do have to be willing to render a guilty verdict even though they understand that their verdict introduces the possibility of capital punishment at the sentencing phase of the trial. There is research, a lot of it involving interviews of jurors in capital cases, that indicates that in spite of their willingness to render a guilty verdict, many of them are extremely uncomfortable with the sentencing phase... with capital punishment. They report that they felt pressured by fellow jury members and now deeply regret going along with them instead of sticking to their own judgements. Some claim that they were not able to sleep well for months, or that they were plagued with bad dreams. Others feel like they were "used." OTOH, and even more disturbing are findings that some jurors more or less made up their minds early on in the trial and disregarded or didn't pay attention to testimony and evidence presented after that point. Those are probably the pros.  |
|
