Question about the death penalty - would like thoughtful responses

[poppy]

Here in Boston there is a lot of news and talk about jury selection for the trial of the Boston Marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.  The prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.  Any jurors who say that they would not sentence someone to death are disqualified  to be on the jury. Or, if not disqualified, they will certainly be not be selected.

 

On the one hand, I understand this.... if a juror refuses to consider one of the sentences options, it seems reasonable to not pick the juror.

 

On the other hand, a huge percentage of Americans are not in favor of executions....40%.   And the people who are most likely to be anti-death penalty? Democrats and Catholics.   It's Boston! This will not be a representative jury if it's skewed away from Democrats and Catholics in this town.

 

In this particular case, the gallup poll number may be off, because this wasn't your average murder. But I'm not really asking about the case. I'm thinking more generally about juries and the justice system.

 

Just wanted to hear some other viewpoints.

 

 

[goldberry]

That's an interesting thought...that by automatically excluding those opposed to the death penalty you are most likely skewing the make-up of the jury to a certain group.  Wonder how Texas handles it? 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think the way they do it is kinda weird.  They claim one is supposed to be judged by one's peers, but I imagine lots of times that isn't how it ends up.

 

I suppose it's somewhat better than ending up with a randomly selected jury and getting very unlucky and ending up with a bunch of people who would be against you no matter what. 

[PeachyDoodle]

Okay, my experience with this is pretty much limited to John Grisham novels (and it may vary by state), but don't the prosecution and the defense JOINTLY select the jury? I thought that each side gets a certain number of "vetoes" and after that they have to make some compromises. Seems like the prosecution would be predisposed to those who support the death penalty, and the defense predisposed to those who don't. In which case, I'd think it would be fairly balanced, since those on the extreme ends of the spectrum would be rooted out and the two sides would then each get some of their choices from the remaining pool.

 

But that may betray a serious lack of understanding of how the system works. :o

 

Is there a law that says only those who support the death penalty are allowed to serve on a capital case?

[Laurie4b]

I do think a jury selected for a  belief in the death penalty  will skew a jury to one that is more likely to convict (in general--even if the death penalty was not an option) than a jury composed of people who were all against the death penalty or a mix.

 

This could be really wrong to generalize this, but based on the sample of people whose position on the death penalty I know, those for the death penalty would make better jury members in the eyes of the  the prosecutor in any type of case (even cases without a capital offense) and those against the death penalty would tend to be the kind of jurors that would please the defense attorney. Those for the death penalty are more likely to believe that it is highly likely the investigation was conducted in all purity, that the right person is on trial, to be for "law and order" above civil rights, etc. Those who do not support the death penalty would be more open to considering that the investigation could have been tainted and that the wrong person might have been arrested and to prioritize civil rights above "law and order." (Of course, we need both law and order AND civil rights and we hope to balance those two. I'm just trying to express a general mindset.)  I wonder if there is any sociological research on this.

[Laurie4b]

Okay, my experience with this is pretty much limited to John Grisham novels (and it may vary by state), but don't the prosecution and the defense JOINTLY select the jury? I thought that each side gets a certain number of "vetoes" and after that they have to make some compromises. They do, but not on the death penalty issue..

 

Seems like the prosecution would be predisposed to those who support the death penalty, and the defense predisposed to those who don't. In which case, I'd think it would be fairly balanced, since those on the extreme ends of the spectrum would be rooted out and the two sides would then each get some of their choices from the remaining pool.

 

But that may betray a serious lack of understanding of how the system works. :o

 

Is there a law that says only those who support the death penalty are allowed to serve on a capital case? Yes, if the death penalty is a possibilty, they can rule out all jurors who don't support that because the jury would stall out if they convicted and came to the sentencing stage. If they had one juror who refused to vote for the death penalty, that wouldn't be an option. 

 

That's a separate issue from the first thing you brought up. That's my understanding, anyway.

 

-

[monstermama]

Huh, interesting reading from wikipedia.  I had no idea this existed and assumed that while the prosecution would want jurors who were for the death penalty, the defense would not.  I can understand why.  I'm against the death penalty and would be morally conflicted about returning a guilty verdict if I thought the defendant would likely be killed instead of given life imprisonment.

[TravelingChris]

First of all, there are plenty of Catholics who do support the death penalty.    I would assume that there are Democrats who do too-  Bill Clinton is one, I believe.   But depending on how people are called up for juries and who is automatically excluded, you don't really get a cross section of society ever for a long trial.  You tend to get people who can afford to be on a long trial---retirees, people who work for companies that pay salaries while you are on jury duty, government workers, and people who don't work for other reasons and aren't looking for work.  People who work in many types of jobs cannot afford to lose that pay and won't get paid for time on jury. 

[poppy]

First of all, there are plenty of Catholics who do support the death penalty.    I would assume that there are Democrats who do too-  Bill Clinton is one, I believe.   But depending on how people are called up for juries and who is automatically excluded, you don't really get a cross section of society ever for a long trial.  You tend to get people who can afford to be on a long trial---retirees, people who work for companies that pay salaries while you are on jury duty, government workers, and people who don't work for other reasons and aren't looking for work.  People who work in many types of jobs cannot afford to lose that pay and won't get paid for time on jury. 

Did you read the poll I linked to? It said that 81% of Republicans and 47% of Democrats favor the death penalty.  So obviously, yes, people of all religions and all stripes have different opinions. But proportionally, have an pro-death penalty is going to be skewed politically away from an appropriately representative mix. 

[umsami]

I do think that it skews the jury.  I'm surprised that they can be eliminated for opposing it.  I'm not sure I'd want the burden of having another person's death on my conscious.  But I think this is going to be a tough trial regardless, and I'm hoping that they plea him out to life in prison. I don't think there's a snowball's chance he'll ever see the light of day again.  I have serious doubts that any jury can be impartial.  

 

I have mixed feelings on the death penalty.  I kind of think we both overuse it and underuse it which makes no sense I know.  I'd like to be completely against the death penalty.  Problem is, I think there are some truly evil people out there.  When I read about serial rapists, or child abusers, I wonder.....WTF can't they just get rid of this guy?  I do not like the concept of mercy to a serial child abuser or child killer.  I'm sorry, I don't.  I don't think s/he should live out their life in relative comfort if they've killed numerous innocent people.  I don't think they should ever be given the chance to re-offend.  

 

Having said all that, I think we drag it out way too long.  I get that one should get appeals and such, but it's such a long drawn out process.  I think I read someplace that in the UK, back when they had hanging, one would be tried and hanged rather quickly.  I want to say a few months.  

 

i'm also not sure why we can't figure out a way to kill people.  Why don't they just give them enough sleeping pills or what not to O.D.  Why the weird drug combos. Why not an execution squad or something?  

 

I also think that in many cases the death penalty is far kinder than a life in SuperMax....solitary confinement 23 hours/24 hours.  That, to me, is cruel and unusual punishment.  I think people given a lifetime sentence without possibility of parole in a place like that should have the option of ending their own lives. 

 

"Inmates spend 23 hours a day locked in their cells and are escorted by a minimum of three officers for their five hours of private recreation per week.^[15] Each cell has a desk, a stool, and a bed, which are almost entirely made out of poured concrete, as well as a toilet that shuts off if blocked, a shower that runs on a timer to prevent flooding, and a sink lacking a potentially dangerous tap. Rooms may also be fitted with polished steel mirrors bolted to the wall, an electric light, a radio, and a black and white television that shows recreational, educational, and religious programming"

[Starr]

Doesn't each side get so many yes and no s for the jury?

[Joker]

Dh recently had jury duty for a death penalty case. He wasn't discharged until almost the very end and was never personally asked about his stance on the death penalty. He said if he was he would have answered that it depended on the crime. He was so glad to not be picked though because it's not something he would ever want to have to decide. I don't know if this particular case is different due to the crime and who is bringing charges or if our county just didn't ask those questions of dh's particular case.

 

 

[kiana]

I agree with your conflict. On the other hand, having people who are morally opposed to the death penalty on the jury runs a serious risk of someone who's guilty being acquitted or convicted of a lesser crime simply because they are uncomfortable with the idea of possibly being involved with a death sentence. I don't think there's an easy answer.

 

The biggest problem I have with the death penalty is because of the possibility of error. It is not that I don't think there are some people who deserve it -- I absolutely do. I am, however, completely unconvinced that our current judicial system does a good job of figuring out which ones do. 

[LucyStoner]

I am strongly opposed to the death penalty.

 

Honestly though, I see why people with a strong preconceived idea one way or the other would be excluded from jury service in death penalty cases. I would still vote to convict if merited but many with my views might not. The sentencing is usually decided by the judge here and not the jury. If I was on a jury considering sentencing though I could not vote for the death penalty.

 

Half of Democrats support the death penalty and more than 1/2 of Catholics do (which I find shocking but I get it). I don't think this precludes liberals or Catholics from the process.

 

Maybe that is an unexpected opinion from me but there you have it.

[staceyobu]

 

...

[kiwik]

Doesn't each side get so many yes and no s for the jury?

I thought that too. I am in a different country though. The jury has the job of determining innocence or guilt though not deciding the sentence - here anyway.

 

I would be opposed to NZ reintroducing the death penalty because,

I) we make a lot of mistakes

2) it requires someone else to kill someone and makes us all parly responsible for a death which reduces our humanity.

 

This is not to say I wouldn't want vengeance just that we shouldn't always have what we want.

[6packofun]

I thought that too. I am in a different country though. The jury has the job of determining innocence or guilt though not deciding the sentence - here anyway.

 

 

That is how I feel it should be done, but then I wonder about the power of someone's sentence being in the hands of one person (the judge, I assume?).  The potential for mistakes will always be there simply because of our humanity.

 

I am also anti-death penalty, though, so I wish that sentencing option was just off the table. 

 

This is an interesting issue.  I guess I had not thought of how jury selection would *have* to include people at least open to the possibility of the death penalty for these cases (well, duh) and maybe skewing the demographics represented.  Hm.

 

[maize]

It makes sense to me in this context to exclude jurors who are opposed to the death penalty because the role of the jurors is to determine guilt. A juror who is ethically opposed to the death penalty may be unwilling to return a verdict of guilty not because they question the verdict but because they oppose the sentence; that is not how the jury system is meant to work. I didn't realize that death penalty cases are an exception to the general rule of juries not being directly involved in sentencing, but that certainly adds another complication as a jury should be open to considering each sentencing option.

 

Excluding jurors opposed to the death penalty isn't ideal, but including them would seem to throw a serious wrench in the system in any trial where the death penalty is on the table.

[Laura Corin]

I find the whole idea of challenging jury members to be strange.  If it's not a random collection of people, then what system is actually being used?  In England and Wales, people are only excluded as jurors if they have a criminal record or know the people involved in the case personally.  Peremptory challenges were abolished.  There is challenge for bias (some examples are given in the article I linked) but I don't know that this case is exactly 'bias'.

 

ETA: sentencing is in the hands of judges here - they are meant to follow national sentencing guidelines, and the sentence can be challenged and put for review if it is too lenient/severe.  No death penalty.

 

L

[maize]

The best solution to this particular problem would seem to be the elimination of the death penalty (not an issue I have seriously studied or have a strong opinion on otherwise) but until/unless that happens I don't see a way around this compromise.

[maize]

I find the whole idea of challenging jury members to be strange. If it's not a random collection of people, then what system is actually being used? In England and Wales, people are only excluded as jurors if they have a criminal record or know the people involved in the case personally. Peremptory challenges were abolished.

 

ETA: sentencing is in the hands of judges here - they are meant to follow national sentencing guidelines, and the sentence can be challenged and put for review if it is too lenient/severe. No death penalty.

 

L

Interesting. My understanding is that jury selection attempts to eliminate people with clear biases in a case such that they would not be able to give impartial consideration to the circumstances as presented.

 

Judges are typically responsible for sentencing here as well, but cases where the death penalty is sought are an exception.

[Laura Corin]

Interesting. My understanding is that jury selection attempts to eliminate people with clear biases in a case such that they would not be able to give impartial consideration to the circumstances as presented.

 

Judges are typically responsible for sentencing here as well, but cases where the death penalty is sought are an exception.

 

I edited my post after you quoted - we do have challenges for bias, but they seem to be really quite specific - people who knew those involved personally, mostly.  Impartial, to me, is such a tricky word. 

[poppy]

I find the whole idea of challenging jury members to be strange.  If it's not a random collection of people, then what system is actually being used?  In England and Wales, people are only excluded as jurors if they have a criminal record or know the people involved in the case personally.  Peremptory challenges were abolished.  There is challenge for bias (some examples are given in the article I linked) but I don't know that this case is exactly 'bias'.

 

ETA: sentencing is in the hands of judges here - they are meant to follow national sentencing guidelines, and the sentence can be challenged and put for review if it is too lenient/severe.  No death penalty.

 

L

 

Some of the people who were dismissed from this case:

- A man whose wife was a nurse in the hospital treating bombing victims and was badly traumatized by the experience

- Someone who said really hateful things about Islamic people (the bomber is Islamic)

- A man who said ""I live with several other males my age, a very testosterone-driven household, they think it's very cool that I would get to sentence him to death".  But he promised this would not influence him.

- A theology professor who said that under no circumstances would he sentence someone to death.

 

I shudder to think what the jury room conversation between those 4 would have been like after a monthlong trial.

[Laura Corin]

Some of the people who were dismissed from this case:

- A man whose wife was a nurse in the hospital treating bombing victims and was badly traumatized by the experience

- Someone who said really hateful things about Islamic people (the bomber is Islamic)

- A man who said ""I live with several other males my age, a very testosterone-driven household, they think it's very cool that I would get to sentence him to death".  But he promised this would not influence him.

- A theology professor who said that under no circumstances would he sentence someone to death.

 

I shudder to think what the jury room conversation between those 4 would have been like after a monthlong trial.

 

I'm not at all an expert, but from my reading the first person might have been excused but the others would be accepted - they represent rather a good cross-section of society.

 

We don't have the death penalty, however, and juries here do not decide on sentencing, so statements three and four would not be relevant.

[SKL]

I don't think this is any stranger than a lot of other things they screen for during jury selection.

 

If 47% of Democrats are pro-death penalty, the pool of possible jurors in Boston will not be small.

[poppy]

I'm not at all an expert, but from my reading the first person might have been excused but the others would be accepted - they represent rather a good cross-section of society.

 

We don't have the death penalty, however, and juries here do not decide on sentencing, so statements three and four would not be relevant.

You have been accused of a notorious crime. One juror says from the get-go "it'd be cool to be the one who gets to have her killed".  Another says "People like her are all criminals anyway".  Why bother with a trial?

[Laura Corin]

You have been accused of a notorious crime. One juror says from the get-go "it'd be cool to be the one who gets to have her killed".  Another says "People like her are all criminals anyway".  Why bother with a trial?

 

I can definitely see the issue.  But all kinds of prejudices must crop up that aren't screened out, and we trust that people will work them out - that's why we have juries of twelve, not one or two.  And for that matter, people will be on juries who can't really follow the evidence, or who are not able adequately to analyse it.  That's part and parcel of the jury system.

 

Do you have majority verdicts or do you need unanimity?

 

L

[shawthorne44]

My mother reached the questioning phase of a jury for a molester of a very small child.  The ONLY question that was asked was "Would you be willing to consider just probation for the accused if you thought he was guilty".   Knowing my mother, the answer was probably a mix of shocked sputtering and cussing.  Mom said everyone's reaction was some version of "He!! No! And you are a scum-bucket for asking!"  The defense then took the plea agreement.  BTW, this was in Texas.  

 

I figure if the lawyers are able to ask that, then asking about the death penalty in a death penalty case is much more reasonable.  

[poppy]

I can definitely see the issue.  But all kinds of prejudices must crop up that aren't screened out, and we trust that people will work them out - that's why we have juries of twelve, not one or two.  And for that matter, people will be on juries who can't really follow the evidence, or who are not able adequately to analyse it.  That's part and parcel of the jury system.

 

Do you have majority verdicts or do you need unanimity?

 

L

 

I think all kinds of weird biases and opinions will crop up in any jury, but, the whole idea is that the jury will start from the assumption "innocent until proven guilty".  If a person admits before the trial they can't or won't do that, or says something that makes it obvious they are inclined to pre-judge, I think it's totally reasonable to take that into account.

 

Some trials require a majority, others unanimity.

 

I was on a jury once in a criminal court and it was eye opening. One lady was  a real dim bulb.  Another was clearly, openly impatient to get it over with.  But everyone took it seriously. We argued, we made outlines, we asked to have recording re-played to us, we worked hard to persuade one another. There is no way to know if we came up with the right decision, but I think the process worked.

[maize]

I can definitely see the issue. But all kinds of prejudices must crop up that aren't screened out, and we trust that people will work them out - that's why we have juries of twelve, not one or two. And for that matter, people will be on juries who can't really follow the evidence, or who are not able adequately to analyse it. That's part and parcel of the jury system.

 

Do you have majority verdicts or do you need unanimity?

 

L

Criminal courts typically require unanimity for a guilty verdict.

 

I believe civil courts are usually majority.

 

Each state has their own judicial system and laws, and then there is a separate federal system for some circumstances. It gets complicated.

[Katy]

Well if they get a skewed jury, that is likely to be grounds for one of many appeals.  Appeals and how much they cost are one of the reasons I'm generaly not pro-death penalty (though I don't object to the concept, just the...  ..now I was going to say execution, but that seems all wrong.  You get it).

 

Oklahoma started using the death penalty again last night, and I groaned until I heard what the man's crime was.  I then wished I hadn't heard, so I'm not going to share.  Google if you want.

[BigMamaBird]

I do think that it skews the jury.  I'm surprised that they can be eliminated for opposing it.  I'm not sure I'd want the burden of having another person's death on my conscious.  But I think this is going to be a tough trial regardless, and I'm hoping that they plea him out to life in prison. I don't think there's a snowball's chance he'll ever see the light of day again.  I have serious doubts that any jury can be impartial.  

 

I have mixed feelings on the death penalty.  I kind of think we both overuse it and underuse it which makes no sense I know.  I'd like to be completely against the death penalty.  Problem is, I think there are some truly evil people out there.  When I read about serial rapists, or child abusers, I wonder.....WTF can't they just get rid of this guy?  I do not like the concept of mercy to a serial child abuser or child killer.  I'm sorry, I don't.  I don't think s/he should live out their life in relative comfort if they've killed numerous innocent people.  I don't think they should ever be given the chance to re-offend.  

 

Having said all that, I think we drag it out way too long.  I get that one should get appeals and such, but it's such a long drawn out process.  I think I read someplace that in the UK, back when they had hanging, one would be tried and hanged rather quickly.  I want to say a few months.  

 

i'm also not sure why we can't figure out a way to kill people.  Why don't they just give them enough sleeping pills or what not to O.D.  Why the weird drug combos. Why not an execution squad or something?  

 

I also think that in many cases the death penalty is far kinder than a life in SuperMax....solitary confinement 23 hours/24 hours.  That, to me, is cruel and unusual punishment.  I think people given a lifetime sentence without possibility of parole in a place like that should have the option of ending their own lives. 

 

"Inmates spend 23 hours a day locked in their cells and are escorted by a minimum of three officers for their five hours of private recreation per week.^[15] Each cell has a desk, a stool, and a bed, which are almost entirely made out of poured concrete, as well as a toilet that shuts off if blocked, a shower that runs on a timer to prevent flooding, and a sink lacking a potentially dangerous tap. Rooms may also be fitted with polished steel mirrors bolted to the wall, an electric light, a radio, and a black and white television that shows recreational, educational, and religious programming"

 

The bolded is what bothers me too.  This might be a massive oversimplification, I don't know much about medicine and the human body, but I used to work for a vet and helped put dozens and dozens of pets to sleep.  I'd hold them and stroke them while the vet gave them a single shot.  They relax, close their eyes and that was it, probably two or three minutes max.  No twitching, gasping, seizing, nothing.  It was so peaceful and often times merciful.

 

And look at all the people who are wanting to carry out Physician assisted suicide.  They have very merciful drugs for those people to take that don't involve horrible, painful outcomes.  

[Katy]

The reason they keep the drug cocktails secret and don't just help them OD on proprananol or something is because every time they use a drug like that and it becomes public, there are groups (the executed's families, etc)  that file lawsuits against those companies.  It's expensive, and because there's a precedent for them earning money instead of the case being thrown out, they can't.  And they can't have an anesthesiologist be the executioner because of the hippocratic oath.

[poppy]

The reason they keep the drug cocktails secret and don't just help them OD on proprananol or something is because every time they use a drug like that and it becomes public, there are groups (the executed's families, etc)  that file lawsuits against those companies.  It's expensive, and because there's a precedent for them earning money instead of the case being thrown out, they can't.  And they can't have an anesthesiologist be the executioner because of the hippocratic oath.

 

 

Another way to put it - if the states revealed the suppliers, they would lose the suppliers.  The ACLU frequently sues over this.  They say it's a first amendment right to be able to accurately state method of execution.  And that no one should have something injected into him without the right to know what it is. I have to say, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that protecting a drug company from lawsuits  should be the government's priority.

[LucyStoner]

You have been accused of a notorious crime. One juror says from the get-go "it'd be cool to be the one who gets to have her killed". Another says "People like her are all criminals anyway". Why bother with a trial?

But why wouldn't this also be the for people with ideological objections to the legal punishment? Ie: why you started this thread.

 

If a juror simply would not vote to convict on any charge that carries the death penalty, they would be bringing their strongly held preconceived notions into the jury room with them, ones which would prevent them with acting in accordance with the law.

 

I think the most appropriate places to challenge the death penalty are in the legislature and the executive branches. Not in a jury room pre-conviction. Believe me, I am really opposed to the death penalty. I really get why someone couldn't sentence someone to death. Besides moral grounds as you likely well know the death penalty is more costly, ineffective as a deterrent and applied with significant gender, racial and class bias. The laws need to change. But it is the law in 30+ states.

[poppy]

I really didn't think of it as "the person would find the accused innocent rather than apply the death penalty". I thought it more along the lines of, given a range of sentences options, they would not pick execution.

[PrincessMommy]

I do think that it skews the jury.  I'm surprised that they can be eliminated for opposing it.  I'm not sure I'd want the burden of having another person's death on my conscious.  But I think this is going to be a tough trial regardless, and I'm hoping that they plea him out to life in prison. I don't think there's a snowball's chance he'll ever see the light of day again.  I have serious doubts that any jury can be impartial.  

 

I have mixed feelings on the death penalty.  I kind of think we both overuse it and underuse it which makes no sense I know.  I'd like to be completely against the death penalty.  Problem is, I think there are some truly evil people out there.  When I read about serial rapists, or child abusers, I wonder.....WTF can't they just get rid of this guy?  I do not like the concept of mercy to a serial child abuser or child killer.  I'm sorry, I don't.  I don't think s/he should live out their life in relative comfort if they've killed numerous innocent people.  I don't think they should ever be given the chance to re-offend.  

 

Having said all that, I think we drag it out way too long.  I get that one should get appeals and such, but it's such a long drawn out process.  I think I read someplace that in the UK, back when they had hanging, one would be tried and hanged rather quickly.  I want to say a few months.  

 

i'm also not sure why we can't figure out a way to kill people.  Why don't they just give them enough sleeping pills or what not to O.D.  Why the weird drug combos. Why not an execution squad or something?  

 

I also think that in many cases the death penalty is far kinder than a life in SuperMax....solitary confinement 23 hours/24 hours.  That, to me, is cruel and unusual punishment.  I think people given a lifetime sentence without possibility of parole in a place like that should have the option of ending their own lives. 

 

"Inmates spend 23 hours a day locked in their cells and are escorted by a minimum of three officers for their five hours of private recreation per week.^[15] Each cell has a desk, a stool, and a bed, which are almost entirely made out of poured concrete, as well as a toilet that shuts off if blocked, a shower that runs on a timer to prevent flooding, and a sink lacking a potentially dangerous tap. Rooms may also be fitted with polished steel mirrors bolted to the wall, an electric light, a radio, and a black and white television that shows recreational, educational, and religious programming"

 

I could have written this post.  I am so conflicted about it.

 

 

[hornblower]

I'm glad I live in a country where there is no death penalty because I'm categorically opposed.

otoh, I do think suicide should be legal & anyone - including convicts - should be able to get access to it & go through a psych screening & be permitted to choose humane euthanasia for themselves.

I do see why you really have to excuse any people who oppose death penalty from sitting on a jury. I would not convict if I thought the person would be killed. I just wouldn't.

[Mbelle]

I strongly believe in victims rights, and I don't know how we should support them more.  However, I am opposed to the death penalty.  It is part of my pro-life belief.  It is not always easy, because there are nasty evil people out there.  Including this guy in Boston.  

 

I also am very concerned about our justice system.  I live in a very crooked state, and have just seen all kinds of abuses at every level.  It's really mind blowing.  I've seen so many people spend a night or two in jail for absolutely no reason. For silly things like they paid their traffic ticket, but the court did not enter it into the computer.  This is just completely outrageous.  I'm very concerned about crooked DA's, the whole "business" of the legal system, from police, to lawyers, judges and prison system.  Very very disturbing.  Our area has an almost paramilitary police force.  I heard about it on the news, but then I actually saw it in action.  Military tank with the local police arresting someone. 

 

I also have no idea how you can trust a jury of your "peers".  Are they really your "peers"?  It seems like that could be very scary in two different ways.  First of all we don't want Tsarnaev to have his peers on his jury.  I'm not sure there's much doubt about his innocence.   But, what about someone who was innocent, who should their peers be?  There is just so much room for corruption, because of of the crooked DA's and the whole "business" of the "justice" system.   

 

My faith in this country's justice system is just very thin and I think it's time there was a huge overhall that includes getting rid of the death penalty.

[LucyStoner]

I do think that it skews the jury. I'm surprised that they can be eliminated for opposing it. I'm not sure I'd want the burden of having another person's death on my conscious. But I think this is going to be a tough trial regardless, and I'm hoping that they plea him out to life in prison. I don't think there's a snowball's chance he'll ever see the light of day again. I have serious doubts that any jury can be impartial.

 

I have mixed feelings on the death penalty. I kind of think we both overuse it and underuse it which makes no sense I know. I'd like to be completely against the death penalty. Problem is, I think there are some truly evil people out there. When I read about serial rapists, or child abusers, I wonder.....WTF can't they just get rid of this guy? I do not like the concept of mercy to a serial child abuser or child killer. I'm sorry, I don't. I don't think s/he should live out their life in relative comfort if they've killed numerous innocent people. I don't think they should ever be given the chance to re-offend.

 

Having said all that, I think we drag it out way too long. I get that one should get appeals and such, but it's such a long drawn out process. I think I read someplace that in the UK, back when they had hanging, one would be tried and hanged rather quickly. I want to say a few months.

 

i'm also not sure why we can't figure out a way to kill people. Why don't they just give them enough sleeping pills or what not to O.D. Why the weird drug combos. Why not an execution squad or something?

 

I also think that in many cases the death penalty is far kinder than a life in SuperMax....solitary confinement 23 hours/24 hours. That, to me, is cruel and unusual punishment. I think people given a lifetime sentence without possibility of parole in a place like that should have the option of ending their own lives.

 

 

 

 

"Inmates spend 23 hours a day locked in their cells and are escorted by a minimum of three officers for their five hours of private recreation per week.^[15] Each cell has a desk, a stool, and a bed, which are almost entirely made out of poured concrete, as well as a toilet that shuts off if blocked, a shower that runs on a timer to prevent flooding, and a sink lacking a potentially dangerous tap. Rooms may also be fitted with polished steel mirrors bolted to the wall, an electric light, a radio, and a black and white television that shows recreational, educational, and religious programming"

Umsami, we don't have the death penalty for anyone except murderers and traitors (and when was the last time we executed someone for treason?). The SCOTUS overturned state laws that added child rape to the list of death penalty eligible offenses in one, possibly 2 states.

 

Mercy isn't easy but that's what makes it so powerful. Forgiveness is more about setting the victim and the surviving family free than absolving the guilty party. No one is made truly whole through the state killing another person. And as you pointed out, a lifetime of incarceration is hardly living out your life in relative comfort.

[Elisabet1]

It makes sense. They need people interested in enforcing the law as it is written to be on the jury, not people who want to re-write the law. There are processes for re-writing the law.

 

A lot of people feel that marijauna should be legal. If you admit that people should not be charged with a crime over marajauna...it probably makes sense to not put you on a jury for marajuana possession.

[kiwik]

Oh yes. I think in NZ you technically could still be sentenced to death for treason but I can't see it happening unless we were actually at war and a firing squad was an option.

[poppy]

It makes sense. They need people interested in enforcing the law as it is written to be on the jury, not people who want to re-write the law. There are processes for re-writing the law.

 

A lot of people feel that marijauna should be legal. If you admit that people should not be charged with a crime over marajauna...it probably makes sense to not put you on a jury for marajuana possession.

 

There is something backwards, humorously, about your logic. People who are anti-death penalty feel that murder should not be legal.  Yet they are the ones most likely to be barred from serving on a jury for a murder trial. 

[AlmiraGulch]

It makes sense. They need people interested in enforcing the law as it is written to be on the jury, not people who want to re-write the law. There are processes for re-writing the law.

 

A lot of people feel that marijauna should be legal. If you admit that people should not be charged with a crime over marajauna...it probably makes sense to not put you on a jury for marajuana possession.

 

I agree with the first part of your post, but I don't think the second logically follows.

 

There's quite a difference between the potential penalty for a possession conviction and that for a murder conviction, where execution is an option.  I know that I am one who thinks marijuana should be legal, but it isn't today and I would have no issue (well...almost none) convicting based on existing laws if I were on that jury.  

 

I am mostly opposed to the death penalty, primarily because I cannot endorse state-sanctioned murder, and because so many people have been exonerated and released from death row based on new evidence and science that I cannot stomach the possibility of putting a single innocent person to death.  That said, you will not see me marching on the Capitol on this one, because I cannot honestly say that if there were definitive proof that someone did something to my child that would warrant the death penalty that I would lobby against it.  I'd like to say I would, but I can't.  

 

It's a tough one for me, but I can see not putting someone on that jury, where the death penalty is an option, who is categorically opposed.  The entire trial could be pointless, then. 

[Caroline]

It sounds like something out of a WW1 movie, doesn't it, being sentenced to death for treason.

 

I kind of get the emotionality around thinking a murderer should die, but 'treason' sounds like an insane reason to execute someone.

It is probably because treason often results in the death of people.

[Laura Corin]

Oh yes. I think in NZ you technically could still be sentenced to death for treason but I can't see it happening unless we were actually at war and a firing squad was an option.

 

It has gone in the UK, even in time of war.

[umsami]

Umsami, we don't have the death penalty for anyone except murderers and traitors (and when was the last time we executed someone for treason?). The SCOTUS overturned state laws that added child rape to the list of death penalty eligible offenses in one, possibly 2 states.

 

Mercy isn't easy but that's what makes it so powerful. Forgiveness is more about setting the victim and the surviving family free than absolving the guilty party. No one is made truly whole through the state killing another person. And as you pointed out, a lifetime of incarceration is hardly living out your life in relative comfort.

 

You're better, more humane than me.  I admit it. 

 

Very few people end up in SuperMax type conditions.  I'd argue that many people incarcerated do have more relative comforts than some law abiding citizens.  Heat, air conditioning, regular food, regular medical and dental care, access to GED and sometimes community college programs for free, or other vocational training.... not every law abiding citizen in this country has that.  Does that mean that those incarcerated should not? Not really...but I'd rather see all the law abiding citizens have it as well.  

 

As I said, I'm really conflicted over it.  I have big issues with out whole judicial/penal system.  Yet as much as I'd like to be merciful and kind....as much as I on one hand envy the way that the Norwegian mass murderer is treated (especially compared to how he would be here)...and think, wow...that has a far better chance at actually rehabilitating a person then what we do.... part of me thinks....that so many here have it nowhere near that good, why should somebody who kills 77 people be treated so well?  Isn't that, in some way, rewarding his crime?  I don't know.  As I said...i wish I could, in theory, be nicer/kinder.   Of course, that guy is complaining that having an outdated PlayStation 2 and receiving only 30 pounds per week is torture.  Sigh.  

 

I suppose I'm fine with Norwegian-style prison for most offenders, but for people who kill 77? For guys who rape and murder children? Nah.  

[Mbelle]

You're better, more humane than me.  I admit it. 

 

Very few people end up in SuperMax type conditions.  I'd argue that many people incarcerated do have more relative comforts than some law abiding citizens.  Heat, air conditioning, regular food, regular medical and dental care, access to GED and sometimes community college programs for free, or other vocational training.... not every law abiding citizen in this country has that.  Does that mean that those incarcerated should not? Not really...but I'd rather see all the law abiding citizens have it as well.  

 

As I said, I'm really conflicted over it.  I have big issues with out whole judicial/penal system.  Yet as much as I'd like to be merciful and kind....as much as I on one hand envy the way that the Norwegian mass murderer is treated (especially compared to how he would be here)...and think, wow...that has a far better chance at actually rehabilitating a person then what we do.... part of me thinks....that so many here have it nowhere near that good, why should somebody who kills 77 people be treated so well?  Isn't that, in some way, rewarding his crime?  I don't know.  As I said...i wish I could, in theory, be nicer/kinder.   Of course, that guy is complaining that having an outdated PlayStation 2 and receiving only 30 pounds per week is torture.  Sigh.  

 

I suppose I'm fine with Norwegian-style prison for most offenders, but for people who kill 77? For guys who rape and murder children? Nah.  

 

 

While I do agree with most of what you are saying, I do personally know of people in a "camp cup cake" type fed pen that are not getting enough food daily.  It is a bit shocking.

I also do not think a large percentage of that particular population even need to be in prison.  They are not doing anything while they are there, they are not a threat in any way, basically it just waste tax payers money.  They would be punished more (other than being away from family) by huge amount of community service hours. It's also interesting to note people serving vastly different amounts of time for the same crime, while others never serve any for doing far worse.  

I do not want to see this country go the way of some countries where the criminal has a better time than the victim.  I find that really insulting to victims.  

[umsami]

While I do agree with most of what you are saying, I do personally know of people in a "camp cup cake" type fed pen that are not getting enough food daily.  It is a bit shocking.

 

I'll be honest and say I do not know anyone who has been in a Federal prison. I do know a few who were in big county jails.  The food was bland (or so they said), but they had enough, if they wanted to eat it.  It was described to me as bad cafeteria food...like in schools.  We could also buy them extremely overpriced care packages that contained things like drink mixes (hot and cold), instant oatmeal, chips, and candy bars.  You could also purchase them a "hot meal" which was a pizza, cheeseburger, or philly cheesesteak with a soda.

 

I'm shocked/saddened to think that there are those who are not getting enough to eat in jail, when it's our responsibility to feed them.  I actually think it would make sense to feed prisoners a simple, but wholesome lacto-ovo vegetarian diet.  Cost effective and healthier...especially as we pay healthcare.  Prisons could keep their own cows, chickens, and vegetable fields to reduce costs. Prisoners could work to help bring in the food.  

[barnwife]

Another way to put it - if the states revealed the suppliers, they would lose the suppliers.  The ACLU frequently sues over this.  They say it's a first amendment right to be able to accurately state method of execution.  And that no one should have something injected into him without the right to know what it is. I have to say, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that protecting a drug company from lawsuits  should be the government's priority.

I am guessing that the government wants to protect the drug companies to keep them producing and supplying drugs for all purposes, not just death penalty use. If the drug companies are getting sued due to their drugs being used in death penalty cases, that would probably increase the likelihood they'd have less time/money/ability to produce drugs for other purposes. 

 

Other than that, I have nothing to add to this thread that hasn't already been covered by others.