barrinmw t1_isb7jje wrote
Reply to comment by ithriosa in Parkland prosecutors ask for an investigation after a juror says she was threatened by ‘a fellow juror’ during deliberations - CNN by SilentR0b
Jurors literally make decisions, that is their job. They decide on guilt and they decide on sentencing, sometimes. And the jury is the last line of defense against a tyrannical justice system.
PaxNova t1_isbkzd6 wrote
Jurors are finders of fact, not determiners of law. That "sometimes" does a lot of work there, as most states and the federal government do not allow juries to determine sentencing.
A jury may be the last line against tyranny, but for a criminal trial, they also almost always have to be unanimous. That means if a single person out of twelve disagrees with the law, nobody can be convicted of it. That would cover pretty much all laws.
AmHoomon t1_iscmkc7 wrote
> Jurors are finders of fact, not determiners of law.
Here's an exercise:
Where, in what law, binds jurors as you describe?
PaxNova t1_iscp7aw wrote
Definitions will vary in statute by state, but Wex defines then as finders of fact. The definition will be used in statute.
There is difficulty in holding them to it, as you cannot dispute the facts once they are found by the jury except on certain circumstances, but the intent / spirit of the law is clear.
barrinmw t1_isbmmlb wrote
Looking it up, in death penalty cases it looks like jurors always get to determine if it is applicable and it always has to be unanimous regardless of state or federal.
ithriosa t1_iscxsgt wrote
No one is saying that jurors have no choice...
Tipop t1_isbq45j wrote
Ok, let’s flip the argument and see if it holds water.
The law says execution is not a valid punishment for rape… but the jury is selected with 12 women — all former rape victims and angry about it — who are more than willing to sentence the rapist to death if the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt.
If it’s okay for the jurists to ignore the law in one direction, is it ok to go the other direction?
barrinmw t1_isbtsxi wrote
Of course not and that isn't a good argument.
If I say that we should never put anyone to death, you don't get to defeat that argument by saying it would be just as silly to say we should put everyone to death. Not everything can just have the roles reversed and be the same logically.
Tipop t1_isbu5ro wrote
The argument you made wasn’t “we shouldn’t put people to death”. Your argument was that jurors should be allowed to dictate the sentence even if it’s not allowed by the law.
I’m against the death penalty, too, but your argument doesn’t hold water.
barrinmw t1_isbuiqi wrote
My example was showing you can't just reverse the situation and take logical conclusions from it.
And no, I wasn't saying that jurors should be allowed to dictate the sentence even if it's not allowed by the law because literally no law only has the death penalty as the consequence of breaking it. A jury has to choose between applying the death penalty in cases that allow it or not. My point is that potential jurors who wouldn't approve of the death penalty should still be allowed to sit on trials where the death penalty is in play.
sweetpeapickle t1_isbu2cc wrote
Well it's not as simple as that. Main part would be the where. In some states, the judge can overrule. Not to mention, the defendent's lawyer might have a say with 12 women, & I'm sure at some point in the questioning of potential jurors, that might come up. Then there is the appeal.
Tipop t1_isbuq3o wrote
We’re not arguing about whether it would survive appeal or if the judge could set aside the verdict. That’s not the question here. The question is “If it’s okay for jurors to ignore the law and DENY the death penalty when the law says it should be applied, then is it ok for jurors to APPLY the death penalty when the law says it shouldn’t?”
NemosGhost t1_iscu1f8 wrote
The point is that the juror can protect the accused from the state. It doesn't work the other way around. The idea is bogus.
Also the judge can absolutely throw out a verdict of guilty or lesson a sentence. The judge however cannot overrule a verdict of not guilty or a decision not to impose the death penalty.
Flat_Hat8861 t1_isc87wa wrote
You seem a bit confused on what a jury does.
Juries are arbiters of facts. Judges are arbiters of law.
If it is a question of facts (and the right hasn't been waived), it is exclusively a jury question. On a death penalty case the question to the jury is "do the facts presented warrant death as the punishment?" There is not a question on if the law supports such a penalty. The summary of the law the juries get helps them understand what the bar is, but only the jury decides if the facts are sufficient.
Your example doesn't provide any questions of fact. If death is not a possibility the jury would never be asked if the facts justify an impossible outcome. That is a question of law that is decided by the judge. This case would be a normal (not capital) criminal case. The jury is given a summary of the law for each charge filed and the jury is asked if the facts presented meet the requirements. The judge would then handle sentencing later (because that is a law question).
ithriosa t1_isb8yfq wrote
>Jurors literally make decisions, that is their job. They decide on guilt and they decide on sentencing, sometimes.
I never said that they didn't make decisions. However they are contained in the decisions that they can make, and they are contrained in how they are supposed to base their decisions.
>And the jury is the last line of defense against a tyrannical justice system.
Sure, however the Justice system is also supposed to be the last line of defense against popular sentiment and popular bias. There are laws, and the jury needs to be conducted in accordance with the law.
Jurors often need to make a decision that goes against their personal opinions and in accordance to the law and evidence presented.
TheNewGirl_ t1_isb9ru0 wrote
>The request comes after a jury Thursday kept Cruz from getting the death penalty, recommending life in prison without parole by default when it did not unanimously agree Cruz should get capital punishment.
Sounds like the jurors are allowed to decide if Capital Punishment is warranted and if not they can by default recommend Life Imprisonment
If you are of the mind that Life Imprisonment is the correct course of action the law says a juror can make that decision
Literally 3 people on this specifc jury were against the death penalty - thats why hes not getting death
ithriosa t1_iscwetr wrote
>Sounds like the jurors are allowed to decide if Capital Punishment is warranted and if not they can by default recommend Life Imprisonment
Yes. I know. I never said the jury couldn't or shouldnt...
supereasybake t1_isbgnpg wrote
Not clear if they were against the death penalty in general or if they were against it in this particular case because of fetal alcohol syndrome.
TheNewGirl_ t1_isbh5vi wrote
That would have been something the lawyers would have asked during the jury selection process
were you there, ofcourse you dont know if not
haplol t1_isbrlzw wrote
Jury nullification is the obvious part of the judicial system that proves you wrong
ithriosa t1_iscxfap wrote
It is part of the judicial system in a similar way as shoplifting is part of shopping. You can do it, and you'll likely get away with it so long as you don't tell the proprietor what you are planning.
Nullification does not prove me wrong. The fact that some do not consider the law or evidence does not refute that they are supposed to. Neglect of duty does not disprove existence of duty.
Jealous-Working-9454 t1_isbg9c7 wrote
Um, no... as someone else pointed out a juror can act as a wildcard against judicial tyranny. That is why we have it. Prosecutors (and sometimes Judges hate that). Terrorists aren't the only ones who hate our freedoms. Me, I hate the 2nd amendment and gun nuts. Cruz should be treated but we have to lock him up just in case he gets his hands on some more guns and we aren't going to get rid of the guns, so... I applaud the courage of the jurors who stood up to the group think brutality! Hooray for them but this is worrisome to me because it might give the state another shot at trying to kill him (which I bet would make some of you sooo happy).
ithriosa t1_iscwajn wrote
>someone else pointed out a juror can act as a wildcard against judicial tyranny.
And as a wildcard against justice.
>I applaud the courage of the jurors who stood up to the group think brutality! Hooray for them but this is worrisome to me because it might give the state another shot at trying to kill him (which I bet would make some of you sooo happy).
I dont care. That isn't relevant. I am also against the deth penalty. I think it is fine that the jury voted against death. But I also think it is proper and appropriate to exclude jurors who express a disregard to the law
Jealous-Working-9454 t1_isd104e wrote
And how did the juror express that disregard, exactly...?
ithriosa t1_isdj7xz wrote
>And how did the juror express that disregard, exactly
The juror didn't express disregard...
I am not saying that voting against death penalty in this case is disregard for the law.
I am saying that refusing to apply the death penalty in ANY circumstance regardless of evidence or detail is disregard.
Jealous-Working-9454 t1_iset3ci wrote
And I would counter that not killing other humans on purpose is a natural law that I respect to the point of disregard for any country's law that may require it. Yours is an argument is support of lawful killing. You cannot possibly find a high ground here - except, perhaps, among killers.
ithriosa t1_isf146d wrote
>Yours is an argument is support of lawful killing.
Lawful killing is near necessary on some level. I am also against the death penalty, but I doubt you really believe what you are saying now. There are many lawful killings, I doubt you oppose all of them.
>You cannot possibly find a high ground here - except, perhaps, among killers.
There was a young girl in wisconsin who's parent were shot and killed. She was abducted by the killer and tortured and raped for multiple months. If she had been able to kill her captor would you say she took the low ground?
Since you think any killing should be considered unlawful, do you think she is a criminal?
>And I would counter that not killing other humans on purpose is a natural law that I respect to the point of disregard for any country's law that may require it
Sure it may be a natural sentiment. But it is not a law. Just because you think something is right does not make it a law. Many people think it is a natural law that killers be put to death, their feelings are not the same as law. Some people believe that rape is simply a natural part of humanity which women are overreacting to, and they would not vote to convict most rapists during trials. Some people believe that it is a natural law that whites are superior to others, and should not be punished as harshly.
Everyone thinks their own feelings are good, but luckily your feelings are not laws
I am not saying that you should not hold your views. But instead that it is reasonable that a state court rejects you as a juror given your disregard for the law which the court is established to uphold.
[deleted] t1_isd8xxc wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments