Tipop t1_isbq45j wrote
Reply to comment by barrinmw in Parkland prosecutors ask for an investigation after a juror says she was threatened by ‘a fellow juror’ during deliberations - CNN by SilentR0b
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).
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments