|
Post by skyloom on Jan 4, 2006 11:03:42 GMT -5
Isn't the question that is asked, "Could you vote for the death penalty?" I could be wrong.
Not quite. It's more like "Could you render an impartial verdict based on the evidence presented, even if the result of your guilty verdict would be a death sentence?"
Also a problem, IMO, is the fact that you have to have a unanimous verdict to convict in a capital murder case but only a majority in the sentencing phase to execute. I'd think it should be necessary to have a unanimous verdict in the sentencing phase as well. Anyone understand why the difference?
|
|
|
Post by attitude on Jan 4, 2006 18:37:56 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 I agree it would be an unlikely event, considering the following * African Americans make up only a small proportion of the population. * The incidence of having a criminal record (something that excludes people from jury service) is much greater amongst African Americans then it is amongst whites
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Jan 4, 2006 19:01:06 GMT -5
Isn't the question that is asked, "Could you vote for the death penalty?" I could be wrong.Not quite. It's more like "Could you render an impartial verdict based on the evidence presented, even if the result of your guilty verdict would be a death sentence?" Also a problem, IMO, is the fact that you have to have a unanimous verdict to convict in a capital murder case but only a majority in the sentencing phase to execute. I'd think it should be necessary to have a unanimous verdict in the sentencing phase as well. Anyone understand why the difference? Because the States where this is the case, fear they would not get enough people to kill if it needed a unanimous decision. However I am told that most states require a unanimous decision for a person to be sentenced to death these days. Love and hugs, Judy Love and hugs, Judy
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Jan 5, 2006 10:04:04 GMT -5
Also a problem, IMO, is the fact that you have to have a unanimous verdict to convict in a capital murder case but only a majority in the sentencing phase to execute. I'd think it should be necessary to have a unanimous verdict in the sentencing phase as well. Anyone understand why the difference? Because the States where this is the case, fear they would not get enough people to kill if it needed a unanimous decision. However I am told that most states require a unanimous decision for a person to be sentenced to death these days. [/quote] Well, not in Delaware. Tom Capano is appealing his sentence on that issue... that "only" 11 out of 12 voted for the death penalty in his case. He is making the case that it's easier to execute than to convict and that assigning death should be unanimous as well. I certainly wouldn't want to make it any easier to convict, but I think he makes an interesting case about the sentencing phase.
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Jan 5, 2006 10:35:37 GMT -5
Also a problem, IMO, is the fact that you have to have a unanimous verdict to convict in a capital murder case but only a majority in the sentencing phase to execute. I'd think it should be necessary to have a unanimous verdict in the sentencing phase as well. Anyone understand why the difference? Because the States where this is the case, fear they would not get enough people to kill if it needed a unanimous decision. However I am told that most states require a unanimous decision for a person to be sentenced to death these days. Well, not in Delaware. Tom Capano is appealing his sentence on that issue... that "only" 11 out of 12 voted for the death penalty in his case. He is making the case that it's easier to execute than to convict and that assigning death should be unanimous as well. I certainly wouldn't want to make it any easier to convict, but I think he makes an interesting case about the sentencing phase.[/quote] Dear Sky, Currently Florida is another state that has majority voting at the penalty phase: However it is likely to be changed this year. Love and hugs, Judy
|
|
|
Post by alias on Jan 6, 2006 21:20:42 GMT -5
I vote yes.
Victims didn't decided to die, or get tortured or what not.
So why let someone else decide a criminals right.
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Jan 9, 2006 15:33:53 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 I don't know because I don't think it's ever happened. I suppose it would depend on the specifics of the case. I doubt that the person responsible for the murder of Emmett Till would get a fair trial from an all black jury. Other times, though, I think that the race of jury members wouldn't make much difference if the defendant is white, but I think that black defendants can't get a fair trial from an all white jury in the U.S.
|
|
|
Post by janet on Jan 9, 2006 17:44:14 GMT -5
I completely agree. A visible minority defendant receiving a fair trial by an all white jury is close to impossible. I find it rather interesting mentally determining just who would comprise 'a jury of one's peers'. Good concept, only it rarely works that way in the real world.
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Jan 10, 2006 9:43:35 GMT -5
|
|