|
Post by judywaits4u on Dec 30, 2005 13:23:49 GMT -5
I agree. The victim's family has no place in the trial except possibly as witnesses. The jury has the responsibility of deciding whether the accused is guilty and what will be the appropriate sentence. In the U.S., we've already committed to a bias because people who oppose capital punishment are not allowed to serve on the jury in a capital trial. Isn't the opposition of the death penalty a bias in and of itself? What is the difference between that and a person who insists on the death penalty in all cases?
|
|
|
Post by capitalistswine on Dec 30, 2005 13:32:57 GMT -5
Isn't the opposition of the death penalty a bias in and of itself? Isn't the question that is asked, "Could you vote for the death penalty?" I could be wrong. Maybe another question that could be used, "Would you vote for the death penalty in all murder cases?" That would be up to the defense attorney to ask that question though.
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Dec 30, 2005 14:10:39 GMT -5
So do you say that a person who could not pass a death sentence can still be a supporter of CP? Now that would be sheer hypocricy.
I think you will find that the defence are not allowed to ask if a person would vote for the death penalty in all cases. Somthing else that is sheer hypocricy.
If you are to be judged by a jury of your peers then that is exactly as it should be, a persons beliefs on CP are besides the point because they are supposed to reflect society and not just the blood thirsty Pro section of society.
|
|
|
Post by capitalistswine on Dec 30, 2005 16:45:20 GMT -5
Of course it would be hypocrisy. But, a person can always lie when being interviewed and say their neither for or against. Then when it comes to sentencing, you make your case against the death penalty in that case and stand by it. I do believe a death penalty recommendation has to be unanimous?
Honestly, I couldn't tell as I've never served on a jury trial. And yes, that would be hypocrisy if the defense were not allowed to ask that question. Funny how the state works, eh?
Understood. This is a little off-topic, but since you mentioned "jury of your peers", whats the deal with courts overturning verdicts of black defendents because there were no black people in the jury box? Is this saying that some black people don't consider themselves a peer to the rest of society? Do they consider themselves above or below the rest of society?
Or is the definition of "peer" purely selective and subjective?
|
|
|
Post by kathy on Dec 30, 2005 17:38:15 GMT -5
"jury of your peers"
How loud would a White person scream if they were to have an all Black jury?
Fom Mr Webster: Peer.......A person who has equal standing with another or others, as in rank, class, or age.
How does a black person have equal standing with a jury of all white people?
|
|
|
Post by capitalistswine on Dec 30, 2005 18:19:21 GMT -5
"jury of your peers" How loud would a White person scream if they were to have an all Black jury? Fom Mr Webster: Peer.......A person who has equal standing with another or others, as in rank, class, or age. How does a black person have equal standing with a jury of all white people? The judiciary process believes in the seperate but equal philosophy? Or are you saying that black people are NOT the peers of white people in rank and class? So, are they beneath white people or above white people? Because from what you're saying, whites and blacks definitely are not peers. By your own definition of "peer", nothing within the definition mentions race.
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Dec 30, 2005 18:24:27 GMT -5
Come off it Capitalist, nobody believes that a black man on trial for capital murder is going to get a trully impartial hearing by an all white jury. If this was not the case, why have so many DAs worked it to exclude all black people from such juries?
|
|
|
Post by capitalistswine on Dec 30, 2005 18:35:22 GMT -5
Come off it Capitalist, nobody believes that a black man on trial for capital murder is going to get a trully impartial hearing by an all white jury. If this was not the case, why have so many DAs worked it to exclude all black people from such juries? I'm pointing out more hypocrisies within the judicial system. If everybody were truly equal and a peer, then there would be no need for these appeals based on all-one-race juries that have convicted a person of a different race. The state uses the death penalty while denying society that choice. The state employs seperate but equal while denying society that choice.
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Dec 31, 2005 8:35:17 GMT -5
Or are you saying that black people are NOT the peers of white people in rank and class? So, are they beneath white people or above white people? Because from what you're saying, whites and blacks definitely are not peers. By your own definition of "peer", nothing within the definition mentions race. Whatever the reasons, the fact is that the murder of a white victim is punished more harshly and more consistently than the murder of a non-white victim in the U.S. and, in addition, non-whites are represented in the death row population in larger numbers than they are in the general population. Our laws support the idea that all people are equal, but apparently that idea hasn't entirely sunk in to the minds of the white population just yet.
|
|
|
Post by kathy on Dec 31, 2005 20:03:36 GMT -5
The victims family has No business making legal decisions! Ummmmmm Amber, you don't eat with that nasty little mouth do you?
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Jan 2, 2006 0:58:46 GMT -5
Come off it Capitalist, nobody believes that a black man on trial for capital murder is going to get a trully impartial hearing by an all white jury. If this was not the case, why have so many DAs worked it to exclude all black people from such juries? Ain't that the truth. Here in the South, at least, there is still A LOT of prejudice (and that goes both ways, black prejudice against white and white against black). An all what jury, or even a majority white jury is definately not fair for a black person on trial for capital murder, and that goes the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by attitude on Jan 2, 2006 21:02:52 GMT -5
Dear All,
What is the chances of a white man or women accused of capital murder of a black person getting a fair trial before an all black jury
I believe racism is a two way issue
|
|
|
Post by kathy on Jan 2, 2006 21:28:40 GMT -5
An all what jury, or even a majority white jury is definately not fair for a black person on trial for capital murder, and that goes the other way around.
I believe racism is a two way issue
I do believe that is what she said!
|
|
|
Post by attitude on Jan 3, 2006 0:39:56 GMT -5
I also believe the cliche "Justice must not only be done, but also be SEEN to be done"
In that a jury of ones peers should be made up of people representive of the community the defendant comes from. I also believe that the reason why you cannot really have an all white jury when an African American or a Hispanic is on trial is becuase of all those times when ethnic minorities were lynched unfairlyby the majority white people...
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Jan 3, 2006 5:53:57 GMT -5
Has anybody EVER come across a capital murder trial where the defendant is white and there has been an all black jury?
I would be very shocked if anybody could find one.
Love and hugs, Judy
|
|