Well then. I learned something as well. I’ve always thought of gross tonnage and displacement as the same thing.

I agree with all of that when you can make a fact based decision, so the guilt/innocence side of the discussion. When you start talking about something that is purely based in emotions (life without parole vs death), excluding those who are against death is putting a pretty heavy weight towards the jury deciding one way. I know you’d used the example of excluding both those who are 100% for and 100% against, but one of those groups makes up a pretty significant part of the population whereas I’m not really sure the other one actually exists.

Yeah that’s what I remember.

Here’s the issue I have. Starting with point 2, the law doesn’t say anything about when someone SHOULD be executed, only which charges it can apply to. (Again, I think…)

From there, you get into a strange position when you start excluding people who are against the death penalty. You’re not looking at a random group of people anymore since you’ve just excluded slightly less than half the population.

I can’t go back to the original I replied to (can’t figure the app out…). I’m going to go with I misunderstood you. What I recall was a statement that people who wouldn’t vote yes on the death penalty coming into the case should be excluded from serving on the jury for that case. Maybe I’m wrong?

Thanks for the polite response there.

I’m definitely in the minority when it comes to compassion for murderers and their families. I can’t remove their humanity regardless of what they did.

Christ, even the Nazis in the bunker up to the end…I can’t help but try putting myself in their shoes. They’re extremely messed up people, but they’re still people.

If the law said “murder = death penalty” then you’d be right. I don’t think it does. Correct me if I’m wrong though.

It actually costs much more to kill someone. And rightfully so. You not only need to be certain of guilt, but that the person received a fair trial.

I’m against the death penalty as it is 100% an emotional response to tragedy. There is no logical argument that supports it. The legal system can’t be working off emotions.

That doesn’t make a lot of sense. This comes down to the question “does he deserve to die for what he did”. A jury should not be curated to get an answer of “yes” to that question.