Community Messageboard: Well, I was technically inaccurate. by Ghavrel

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Well, I was technically inaccurate. Ghavrel Send a noteboard - 17/05/2015 10:31:39 AM

You can't serve on the jury if your beliefs are such that you will refuse to impose the death penalty. If you are "against" the death penalty but are willing to sentence someone to death, you can serve. Conversely, you can't have such beliefs that you would only impose the death penalty for murder. A juror has to accept life in prison as a possible punishment.

As far as I know the earliest discussion of death-qualified juries (that's what I suppose you'd call the term of art) in the SCOTUS was in Witherspoon v. Illinois. The Court had this to say:

The petitioner contends that a State cannot confer upon a jury selected in this manner the power to determine guilt. He maintains that such a jury, unlike one chosen at random from a cross-section of the community, must necessarily be biased in favor of conviction, for the kind of juror who would be unperturbed by the prospect of sending a man to his death, he contends, is the kind of juror who would too readily ignore the presumption of the defendant's innocence, accept the prosecution's version of the facts, and return a verdict of guilt. To support this view, the petitioner refers to what he describes as "competent scientific evidence that death-qualified jurors are partial to the prosecution on the issue of guilt or innocence."

The data adduced by the petitioner, however, are too tentative and fragmentary to establish that jurors not opposed to the death penalty tend to favor the prosecution in the determination of guilt. Link to the text of the note We simply cannot conclude, either on the basis of the record now before us or as a matter of judicial notice, that the exclusion of jurors opposed to capital punishment results in an unrepresentative jury on the issue of guilt or substantially increases the risk of conviction. In light of the presently available information, we are not prepared to announce a per se constitutional rule requiring the reversal of every conviction returned by a jury selected as this one was.

I suppose the reason they have it organized is so that people's feelings on the matter don't get in the way of the application of law. Now, if you're asking me as a diehard death penalty abolitionist, I don't think they do justify it, because it and the death penalty are both unjustifiable.

"We feel safe when we read what we recognise, what does not challenge our way of thinking.... a steady acceptance of pre-arranged patterns leads to the inability to question what we are told."
~Camilla

Ghavrel is Ghavrel is Ghavrel

*MySmiley*

Reply to message

Yeah, kill the SOB!

Anonymous2000 - 16/05/2015 03:23:17 AM 605 Views

I'm somewhat suprised... Jeordam - 17/05/2015 05:01:04 AM 387 Views

It's not surprising at all, since you can't serve on the jury if you're against the death penalty. *NM* Ghavrel - 17/05/2015 05:21:34 AM 132 Views

Really? How do they justify that? *NM* Legolas - 17/05/2015 09:10:38 AM 129 Views

Well, I was technically inaccurate. Ghavrel - 17/05/2015 10:31:39 AM 378 Views

Isn't much different then if you said you didn't think drunk driving should be a crime random thoughts - 18/05/2015 08:37:53 PM 342 Views

It's because this was Federally imposed on Massachusetts. The Shrike - 19/05/2015 04:10:00 PM 367 Views

I almost would have rather seen him get life random thoughts - 18/05/2015 08:39:37 PM 351 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="287529">
You can't serve on the jury if your beliefs are such that you will refuse to impose the death penalty. If you are "against" the death penalty but are willing to sentence someone to death, you can serve. Conversely, you can't have such beliefs that you would <i>only</i> impose the death penalty for murder. A juror has to accept life in prison as a possible punishment.

As far as I know the earliest discussion of death-qualified juries (that's what I suppose you'd call the term of art) in the SCOTUS was in <i>Witherspoon v. Illinois</i>. The Court had this to say:

<quote>The petitioner contends that a State cannot confer upon a jury selected in this manner the power to determine guilt. He maintains that such a jury, unlike one chosen at random from a cross-section of the community, must necessarily be biased in favor of conviction, for the kind of juror who would be unperturbed by the prospect of sending a man to his death, he contends, is the kind of juror who would too readily ignore the presumption of the defendant's innocence, accept the prosecution's version of the facts, and return a verdict of guilt. To support this view, the petitioner refers to what he describes as "competent scientific evidence that death-qualified jurors are partial to the prosecution on the issue of guilt or innocence."

The data adduced by the petitioner, however, are too tentative and fragmentary to establish that jurors not opposed to the death penalty tend to favor the prosecution in the determination of guilt. Link to the text of the note We simply cannot  conclude, either on the basis of the record now before us or as a matter of judicial notice, that the exclusion of jurors opposed to capital punishment results in an unrepresentative jury on the issue of guilt or substantially increases the risk of conviction. In light of the presently available information, we are not prepared to announce a per se constitutional rule requiring the reversal of every conviction returned by a jury selected as this one was.</quote>

I suppose the reason they have it organized is so that people's feelings  on the matter don't get in the way of the application of law. Now, if you're asking me as a diehard death penalty abolitionist, I don't think they do justify it, because it and the death penalty are both unjustifiable. :P
</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password